House of Commons Hansard #23 of the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was project.

Topics

Teck Frontier Mine ProjectEmergency DebateEmergency Debate

10:40 p.m.

Conservative

Warren Steinley Conservative Regina—Lewvan, SK

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely am telling my children that the environment is a concern. We had a great environment plan that we won the popular vote with in the last election. I am happy to say that the environment is an important issue on this side of the House, but so is our energy sector. They go hand in hand.

I can say for certain I am teaching my children that, if they work hard and are hard-working men and women, they will have a chance to ensure that they can get a job in any of the sectors they want, because we will treat all the sectors in this country the same when we are in government.

Teck Frontier Mine ProjectEmergency DebateEmergency Debate

10:40 p.m.

NDP

Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a moment to acknowledge the passion with which the member spoke tonight. I appreciate that. I appreciate that he is fighting for his constituents. While I do not agree with how he is doing that, I certainly appreciate that. I am also a mother and appreciate that he is fighting for his children's future, as I am for mine.

The member did not want us to cherry-pick, but then he cherry-picked from the letter. I just wanted to double-check. I am going to read a bit. It states:

At Teck, we believe deeply in the need to address climate change and believe that Canada has an important role to play globally as a responsible supplier of natural resources. We support strong actions to enable the transition to a low carbon future. We are also strong supporters of Canada’s action on carbon pricing and other climate policies such as legislated caps for oil sands emissions.

Could the member talk about his support for the carbon tax?

Teck Frontier Mine ProjectEmergency DebateEmergency Debate

10:40 p.m.

Conservative

Warren Steinley Conservative Regina—Lewvan, SK

Mr. Speaker, I am more than happy to talk about what we have contributed to reducing emissions.

I was part of the Government of Saskatchewan that brought forward carbon capture and sequestration. It took over 225,000 cars' worth of emissions off the road. We have done more in Saskatchewan to reduce emissions than almost any other province in the country.

When we talk about reducing emissions, we do it through technology. We do it through Evraz steel. It is one of the most environmentally friendly steel plants in the world. It should be making more steel there, because it does it through recycled steel. It does it through better practices and it does it cleaner than any other manufacturer of steel in the country. Hamilton does a good job as well. The member for Hamilton is not here, but he reminds me of that all the time.

Yes, I have been a part of a government that has had concrete carbon reductions in Saskatchewan.

Teck Frontier Mine ProjectEmergency DebateEmergency Debate

10:45 p.m.

Liberal

Kody Blois Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Mr. Speaker, I echo the comments of my colleague from Strathcona on emotion. It is clear that this member is very passionate about these issues. He used the words “phased out by people in this chamber”, referring to, of course, the oil sands and the petroleum industry.

What would my colleague have to say about the 38 projects that are already approved and waiting to be invested in? What would he say to his constituents at home about those projects and why they are not moving forward?

Teck Frontier Mine ProjectEmergency DebateEmergency Debate

10:45 p.m.

Conservative

Warren Steinley Conservative Regina—Lewvan, SK

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to seeing that list of projects the member is talking about. I would be interested to see where those 38 projects are, and if there are some places where we can work hand in hand to make sure that we get those projects moving forward. I would love to work with members across the aisle on that, because it seems like they have a big commitment to being able to make sure we have energy projects going forward.

As to the words “phased out”, those were not my words. Those were the words of the Prime Minister, so I was just making—

Teck Frontier Mine ProjectEmergency DebateEmergency Debate

10:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

We will have a quick question.

The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

Teck Frontier Mine ProjectEmergency DebateEmergency Debate

10:45 p.m.

Conservative

Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB

Mr. Speaker, I know that the word “viability” has been used a lot and certainly there are jurisdictions around the world where there is significant viability in the energy industry.

I wonder if the member for Regina—Lewvan would have questions as to why investment is happening in the energy industry around the world, but it cannot seem to happen here in Canada.

Teck Frontier Mine ProjectEmergency DebateEmergency Debate

10:45 p.m.

Conservative

Warren Steinley Conservative Regina—Lewvan, SK

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question from the member for Battle River—Crowfoot. I understand that we have seen investment in the industry grow in Venezuela. We have seen it grow in the States. We have seen it grow in Donald Trump's America where there is no carbon tax. That is happening because the government got out of the way. I did not even mention that in my speech.

So many Canadians, so many western Canadians, so many people from Alberta and Saskatchewan say, “We understand taxes. We understand we have to pay them. We just want the federal government to get out of our way and let us get back to work. That is what we want: a level playing field.” We understand that, and that is why this playing field needs to be levelled, so that we can compete with countries around the world.

Teck Frontier Mine ProjectEmergency DebateEmergency Debate

10:45 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to participate in this timely emergency debate initiated by my colleague, the hon. member for Lakeland, on the cancellation of the Teck Frontier mine project, a project in northern Alberta, that if completed would have had the capacity to produce up to 260,000 barrels of bitumen a day, resulted in 2,500 construction jobs, 7,000 permanent jobs and $70 billion of new tax revenue. Not only that, it was a project that was supported by and would have been beneficial to the 14 affected indigenous and Métis communities. Here we are tonight, and all of that is gone. The project is cancelled. It is history and it is not coming back.

In the face of the cancellation of the project, what has been the Prime Minister's response? It was effectively to shrug off the cancellation and say it was merely a decision of Teck, nothing more and nothing less. The vast majority of my constituents and Albertans do not buy the Prime Minister's explanation. They know there is one person who bears considerable responsibility for the cancellation of Teck, and that is the Prime Minister.

Let us look at the facts. Teck went through all of the regulatory hurdles. The joint review panel gave it the green light all the way back in July of 2019. All that needed to be done was for the Prime Minister and his cabinet to give it the final approval. What did the Prime Minister and his cabinet do? They dithered and delayed month after month, undermining investor confidence. Then, more recently, they sent the signal that they were seriously contemplating killing the project altogether, a project that not only would have resulted in thousands of jobs but in billions of dollars of new tax revenue that would have gone some way to restoring investor confidence, which has been sorely lacking and undermined thanks to the policies of the Liberal government. They were contemplating killing a project that really sets the gold standard when it comes to clean emissions with respect to GHG intensity, which is roughly half that of the oil sands industry average, which was projected to be carbon neutral by 2050. It is indeed a project that the joint review panel noted might actually help reduce overall GHGs, not increase GHGs, having regard for alternate sources. For the Prime Minister, in the face of this devastating news for my province of Alberta, to simply shrug his shoulders and say that it was a decision of Teck truly requires a suspension of disbelief.

Make no mistake about it, the decision of Teck was not made in a vacuum; it was made within the context of regulatory uncertainty that arises from misguided policies on the part of the government that is literally killing Canada's energy sector. From the tanker ban off the northwest coast of British Columbia to changing the rules with respect to upstream and downstream emissions midway through the approval of energy east, ramming through Bill C-48 and Bill C-49 at the end of the last Parliament, and I could go on, the message collectively that the current government has sent is that Canada is not open for business, that Canada is not open to investment in the energy sector. The consequences have been devastating.

We have seen $200 billion in projects cancelled since the government came to office. We have seen the rig count cut in half, down 50%. Capital investment is fleeing. Indeed, capital investment is down more than 50%. There are 120,000 people out of work in the energy sector since the current government came to office.

We have seen, in terms of equity raised in 2018, a mere $650 million. Let us compare and contrast that to the United States. In 2018, equity and debt raised amounted to $19.4 billion. That is $19.4 billion in the United States and $650 million in Canada. In the United States, which is open to business and to investment in the energy industry, investment has skyrocketed, production has reached record levels, and for the first time in U.S. history, the United States is energy independent. So much for the sorry excuses across the way.

I heard one member say, “Industries could just move ahead with projects, but they are choosing not to.” It is not that they are choosing not to move ahead with projects; it is just that they are choosing to go elsewhere, to the United States and to other jurisdictions around the world that are saying they are open for business while the current government shuts down Canada's most vital sector of the economy. The number of companies that have divested from Canada in the energy sector, and are divesting from Canada as we speak, is too long to list.

In the face of that, what does the Prime Minister not get? How much is it going to take? How many more projects are going to be cancelled? How much more investment is going to flee this country? How many more people have to be laid off? How many more people have to give up hope because they have been unemployed for the last several years?

Let us talk about the social impact it has on families. They are devastated. The food bank in my constituency, each and every year that this Prime Minister has been in office, has reached a new record level, year after year, thanks to this Prime Minister. It is time that this Prime Minister woke up. It is time that he put Canada first, and as a starting point to do that, he ought to immediately reverse his failed and destructive policies.

Teck Frontier Mine ProjectEmergency DebateEmergency Debate

10:55 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Mr. Speaker, I listened quite closely to the member for St. Albert—Edmonton. To take the approach in this place of laying all the blame on the Prime Minister is just absolutely plain ridiculous. The CEO of Teck Frontier said clearly that the market was the major part of the reason it pulled out. I want to read from the letter of Teck Frontier's CEO, which stated:

Frontier, however, has surfaced a broader debate over climate change and Canada’s role in addressing it. It is our hope that withdrawing from the process will allow Canadians to shift to a larger and more positive discussion about the path forward.

We have not seen that positive discussion here tonight from the opposition at all.

There are real issues out there, and the member blames the Prime Minister. Let me tell the House something: The Prime Minister's response came long before this discussion by Teck Frontier. It came in the previous budgets we made and passed in this House, where we tried to bring the environment and the economy together. It came for an area that we get a lot of criticism on, with the Prime Minister supporting and purchasing the Trans Mountain pipeline so we can get product to a different market than the United States of America and perhaps get rid of the Alberta discount, which is costing this country $587 billion a year.

The Prime Minister has been responding. He has been trying to move forward—

Teck Frontier Mine ProjectEmergency DebateEmergency Debate

10:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Order, please.

The hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

Teck Frontier Mine ProjectEmergency DebateEmergency Debate

10:55 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am very privileged to serve on the finance committee with the hon. member.

Is it such a coincidence that we have seen all of the investment that has left this country since the government came to office?

Is it a coincidence that $200 billion in projects have been cancelled since the Prime Minister came to office?

Is it a coincidence that the northern gateway pipeline was killed since the Prime Minister came to office, or that energy east was cancelled? We have seen the government create so much uncertainty that it had to buy a pipeline, the cost of which is skyrocketing every day.

I would say it is not a coincidence. It is directly as a result—

Teck Frontier Mine ProjectEmergency DebateEmergency Debate

10:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.

Teck Frontier Mine ProjectEmergency DebateEmergency Debate

10:55 p.m.

Bloc

Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Speaker, the debate this evening is certainly intense, but all I am seeing is confrontation. It is not the fault of my friends from Alberta, nor the fault of my friends from Quebec, Manitoba or Ontario. It is the fault of the governments that preceded everyone who is sitting here this evening.

In the 1970s and 1980s, the government invested billions of dollars in Alberta's oil sands. Today, those people have no way out. They are stuck with it. They no longer have any work. That is not the right way to do things.

I think they will ultimately understand that Alberta needs to leave this federation, just as Quebec should leave it.

Does my hon. colleague not agree that Alberta would be much better off outside this federation, which is where Quebec should be?

Teck Frontier Mine ProjectEmergency DebateEmergency Debate

11 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am a proud Canadian and I will do everything I can to support Canada. What is so distressing is to see the disunity that the Prime Minister has created as a result of his policies.

Teck Frontier Mine ProjectEmergency DebateEmergency Debate

11 p.m.

NDP

Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton, whom I do have a lot of respect for. I served with him on the justice committee.

I noticed the price of West Texas Intermediate was at $50 a barrel. Does he really believe the price is going to come up to a level in future decades that will make this project sustainable, given all we know about world oil markets and the pressures on the world economy? This is not to mention the incredible threat we are facing from climate change. I ask him that in all honesty as a friend.

Teck Frontier Mine ProjectEmergency DebateEmergency Debate

11 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

Mr. Speaker, I will give a very simple answer to my friend. I would note that the price was the same in July and at that time, Teck had every intention of moving forward.

Teck Frontier Mine ProjectEmergency DebateEmergency Debate

11 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I thank the whip's office from the Liberal Party for allowing me a speaking slot in tonight's emergency debate. I always appreciate a chance to speak. This is a very important debate and even at this late hour, I do want to discuss the emergency.

It is true. This is both a national and worldwide emergency.

Of course, I do not speak of this non-emergency that is the focus of tonight's debate. The private sector company has seen the writing on the wall and has decided to pull a project that it would probably never have built even if it had pushed through to try to get a permit. The writing was on the wall.

I speak of the real emergency. This House on June 17 of last year passed a motion which said the following:

Canada is in a national climate emergency which requires, as a response, that Canada commit to meeting its national emissions target under the Paris Agreement and to making deeper reductions in line with the Agreement's objective of holding global warming below two degrees Celsius and pursuing efforts to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius.

Now, this is an emergency. It is one that threatens not just our economy, but it certainly does threaten our economy. It does not just threaten Saanich—Gulf Islands or Alberta, and it does not just threaten Canada. It threatens the world.

Members in this place should please take the time to read the special report on what 1.5°C looks like versus 2°C. This is a special report prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change at the request of all governments that negotiated the Paris Agreement in 2015, a request that was highly specific that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change provide this specific information in time for the 2018 negotiations.

That emergency report should have sent shockwaves through every caucus in this place and right around the world, and certainly it did in many countries around the world, because it told us very clearly that holding to 1.5°C is not a political target. It is the only way we can ensure that our children will have a livable world. This is not future hypothetical children and future generations, but the children we know, our children, and for them to have a liveable world requires of us that we hold to no more warming than 1.5°C.

It is a hard concept, average global temperature, in a country like Canada that goes from -30°C in the winter to +30°C in the summer, and so 1.5°C does not sound so very significant, but do not dismiss it. Understand that on this planet between today and 10,000 years ago when where we stand was under thousands of kilometres of ice, the difference in global average temperature was 5°C.

What the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told us in October 2018 was that holding to 1.5°C was not an ambitious target that we might do if we could get around to it. It told us very clearly that if we want our own children to have a livable planet in a hospitable biosphere, we must hold to 1.5°C. It further told us that it would be possible to do so, but it would require a global slashing of emissions by 45% all around the world by 2030.

Now that the Liberals have given us this notion that we are going to get to net zero by 2050, it is clear that the current target which was left behind by a former minister of the environment, Leona Aglukkaq, in the administration of Stephen Harper, is the target we are talking about. The Liberals still have no plan to get to that target, and that target is approximately half of what we must do as a country.

Yes, we are in an emergency, because if we miss slashing by 50% the global emissions, and actually the IPCC advice is 45% against 2005 levels globally of carbon dioxide, then there are no do-overs. There are no second chances. We condemn future generations to an unlivable world in which human civilization may not make it to the end of the century.

It is very clear that globally people were paying attention to this Teck Frontier decision, because Canada has a role to play in the world, and it should be one of leadership, but we remain laggards. Earlier tonight in debate, some hon. members were mentioning what the United States is doing. At this point, the United States, yes even under the Trump administration, is doing better at reducing greenhouse gases than Canada is. That is due to the actions of sub-national governments, states like California, New York and Texas. It is due to the actions of cities. Canada's record in this regard remains shameful, but we have a chance to redeem ourselves.

I have never before seen anything like the letter from over 40 Nobel laureates sent to our Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister to beg them not to approve the Teck Frontier mine. Most of them are Nobel laureates in chemistry, although there is one who won it in economics, a few in medicine and some in literature, including Alice Munro.

In that letter, they said:

Projects that enable fossil-fuel growth are an affront to our state of climate emergency, and the mere fact that they warrant debate in Canada should be seen as a disgrace. They are wholly incompatible with your government’s recent commitment to net-zero greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050....

The response to the climate crisis will define and destroy legacies in the coming years, and the qualifications for being on the right side of history are clear: an immediate end to fossil-fuel financing and expansion along with an ambitious and just transition away from oil and gas production towards zero carbon well before mid-century.

As recipients of the Nobel Prize, we call on you and your cabinet to act with the moral clarity required by the state of this crisis and reject the proposed Teck Frontier mine proposal.

I invite members to ponder that. There are 40 Nobel laureates specifically begging the Canadian government to act as if we understand we are in a climate emergency.

It has been said by Bill McKibben, who is one of the planet's leading climate activists and a brilliant author, that the first rule of holes is this: stop digging. Canada is in a very deep hole. We are far from our climate target, and that target itself needs to be doubled. What we cannot do here is add new greenhouse gas production. This project would have been enormous. If this project had gone ahead, it would have been twice the size of the city of Vancouver, at over 24,000 hectares. It would have, as the environmental assessment report found, done irreparable damage to the environment. It would have removed the forest, removed the muskeg, damaged wildlife and been damaging in many ways.

There has never been, by the way, any environmental assessment process in this country that has ever said no to a project. Clearing these very rigorous environmental reviews that we keep hearing about in this place cannot be that hard, because no one has ever been turned down. No pipeline has ever been turned down by any environmental assessment process in this country. No oil sands mine has ever been turned down by any environmental assessment process in this country, no matter which government drafted the law.

In this case, it is a project where even after all the environmental damage was catalogued, the panel found that the economic benefits of the project outweighed all the downsides. However, as we have heard in this House, the economics were kind of wobbly, because what Teck Frontier put forward as the precondition to this project being viable was that oil was selling at $95 a barrel. That is what they put in the report. That is what they relied upon. As we also commented in this place, there were not a lot of investors lining up.

I think the Prime Minister of this country may have remarkable talents, and the reach of his powers may prove to be supernatural, but I have not seen it yet, so I really do not think the Prime Minister can be held responsible, as the Conservatives in this House would like us to hold him responsible, for the price of a barrel of oil globally. That is beyond the reach of his powers.

The reality is that investors are moving away from fossil fuels all around the world. Just listing the companies and investors that have vacated the oil sands is edifying. These companies have left because they are concerned about something identified by the former governor of the Bank of Canada, Mark Carney. He refers to them as “stranded assets”. Investors are left with “unburnable carbon”.

If the fossil fuel business has something of a future ahead of it, it resembles a game we played as children, musical chairs. People start falling on the ground because the chairs are gone. Nobody wants to be left trying find the chair that is in the oil sands, one of the first places investors vacate because it is unburnable carbon and its stranded assets are very expensive.

Sweden's central bank left the oil sands and their investments in the oil sands, specifically stating that this province is the “highest in terms of carbon dioxide emissions”. Royal Dutch Shell has left the oil sands, stating specifically that it did not want stranded assets. ConocoPhillips, Marathon, Total and even the coke industries have vacated the oil sands and the investments there.

Earlier, some of the speakers in this place referred to people concerned about climate change as fringe groups and eco-radicals, people without a really good grip on the finance sector. Perhaps members could imagine which eco-radical said the following on January 14: “We cannot rule out catastrophic outcomes where human life as we know it is threatened.”

That is a suggestion that we are on the path to human extinction. That quote did not come from Greenpeace or the Green Party. It came in a leaked document prepared by economists working for J.P. Morgan.

J.P. Morgan will be held forever on the wrong side of history for being responsible for having spent $75 billion investing in fossil fuels in recent years, but now recognizes that we cannot rule out catastrophic outcomes. In fact, it now announces that it will not invest anymore in new coal or drilling in the Arctic, but that is not really good enough.

Goldman Sachs is the first big U.S. bank to rule out future financing of some forms of fossil fuels. It are not alone. BlackRock is one of the biggest investment companies in the world. Its CEO has said that climate is “almost invariably the top issue that clients around the world raise.” Climate is the number one issue its clients raise. It is moving toward divestment.

My favourite quote on this subject comes from Wall Street watcher Jim Cramer, who has a TV show that I have seen from time to time. It is called Mad Money and it is an investment program on CNBC. He says, “Big pension funds are saying listen, we're not going to own them anymore” and “I'm done with fossil fuels. They're done.”

Obviously Jim Cramer has been heavily influenced by the Prime Minister's brainwaves across the border to the United States. No, this whole notion that the Prime Minister is in any way at fault for Teck Frontier cancelling is absurd. The problem is that the Prime Minister cannot take any credit either, because the Government of Canada is still on the laggard side. We are still on the wrong side of history.

We could do what is required. In the Liberal platform, we have a very promising commitment to a climate accountability act. Where is it? When will we see it? This Parliament will not sit that long. It is a minority Parliament. Let us work on the things we can work on together. The majority of MPs in this House want a climate accountability act with five-year increments, not these targets that no one ever has to meet.

On that note, 2020 is the year that Stephen Harper's climate promise falls due. It is this year. It was negotiated by the late and quite wonderful Hon. Jim Prentice. It was approved by a cabinet that includes Alberta Premier Jason Kenney. Also, 2020 is the year the Copenhagen target falls due, so by this year we should be emitting no more than roughly 600 megatonnes of greenhouse gases. The last figure we have is that we are at 716 or 717 megatonnes of greenhouse gases.

Let us imagine we could magically get to Stephen Harper's target. Politicians in this country choose targets knowing that the due date will exceed the best before date and somebody else will note that we have missed the target once again. That is why we need a climate accountability act that measures this in five-year increments, with an independent auditing function, so we know whether we are meeting our targets.

The surest thing we can say is that Teck, as a company, had a lot of issues. It has had troubles with its mine in Chile. It had a lot of financial issues swirling around this. The business pages of this country were full of those stories, not of the Nobel laureates who warned us that to approve Teck Frontier would be an act close to criminality, when one considers the cost to our children, future generations and the peoples of the world if we continue as a country to boost our greenhouse gases rather than slash them. The business pages were full of speculation about the CEO of Teck, Don Lindsay, whose name has been raised in the House tonight more often than probably any CEO in Canadian history. He was clear: Teck had not done a feasibility study and was not sure it could go ahead. However, even a month ago he was saying we should give Teck the permit and he would see if it could raise the capital, if the price changed.

This project was never going to go ahead, but the Liberals have lost their chance for moral courage. They lost the chance to say they would never have approved this. This was, in the words of some Liberal MPs, an easy no. For God's sake, the Liberals need to stand for something while they have time in this place. They need to stand for future generations and put in place a climate target well before we get to Glasgow in November so that Canada can once again be in the lead. Canada as a climate leader is still possible to imagine.

I listened to the embarrassing response from the Liberals that it really was not their fault that Teck Frontier did not go ahead. They should stand up and say that they would never have approved it. Then we can believe the Prime Minister might have a notion of being a climate leader.

Teck Frontier Mine ProjectEmergency DebateEmergency Debate

11:20 p.m.

Liberal

Kody Blois Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Of course, there has been a lot of discussion tonight on the viability of projects moving forward and the importance of both the environment and the economy.

The member for Regina—Lewvan asked a question about the 38 oil sands projects that have been approved and are not being built in this country. He asked for the report. I have the report here that spells out the existing projects in Alberta that are approved but have not yet been built. I understand I need unanimous consent, but I would like to table it in the House for the benefit of the member.

Teck Frontier Mine ProjectEmergency DebateEmergency Debate

11:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to table the document?

Teck Frontier Mine ProjectEmergency DebateEmergency Debate

11:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Teck Frontier Mine ProjectEmergency DebateEmergency Debate

11:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Heritage.

Teck Frontier Mine ProjectEmergency DebateEmergency Debate

11:20 p.m.

Toronto—Danforth Ontario

Liberal

Julie Dabrusin LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage

Mr. Speaker, a lot of the discussion we have heard in the House today has been about jobs and the economy. I am quite happy that my friend just rose to talk about the projects that have been approved but have not gone ahead, because it speaks to the fact this project was far from certain and far from creating jobs.

The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands talked quite a bit about the economics behind this project and I thought that was helpful. Perhaps she could talk to us about what our role is in a just transition for all of this and about ensuring that we work as partners across all provinces and regions to make sure people have access to employment and have opportunities in a green economy as we move toward a low-carbon economy.

Teck Frontier Mine ProjectEmergency DebateEmergency Debate

11:20 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is essential, and it is noted in the preamble of the Paris Agreement, that we embrace social justice, climate justice and a just transition. I want to credit the Canadian labour unions that were in the Paris Agreement negotiations, because they played quite a prominent role in making sure that the protection of jobs for workers in the fossil fuel sector remained critical.

Another promise from the Liberal platform is a just transition act. We need to ensure that no workers in the fossil fuel sector feel insecure about their ability to pay their mortgage and take care of their kids. This is not about hurting fossil fuel workers. Those of us who want climate action want to ensure their transition is not abrupt, like what happened in Newfoundland when the cod fishery moratorium took place and 30,000 people lost their jobs overnight. We must plan for this and not allow people to go through personal misery.

Teck Frontier Mine ProjectEmergency DebateEmergency Debate

11:20 p.m.

Conservative

Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, the member referred to billions of dollars of funds that are not going to be invested in hydrocarbons anymore around the world, and I have read that too.

Therefore, I want some clarity on that, about where we are putting our faith in the decision-makers here. Is it the unaccountable trillion-dollar funds with billionaire owners saying, “We are going to make money at this process one way or another”? No matter how it goes, we are going to have some moral hazard borne by the taxpayer.

Does the member across the way not see that as being something that we should not stand for in this House?