Debates of Feb. 25th, 2020

Teck Frontier Mine Project

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. He is always very specific, he does a good job and I have worked with him on committee.

I want to share some key things with my colleague.

When it comes to the market, the Conservatives do not understand the market, because they did not ship any oil outside of the United States.

To my colleague's question, we have seen today that there are over one million Canadians lifted out of poverty. There has been major—

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

To the hon. parliamentary secretary, we are resuming debate.

The hon. member for Lethbridge.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, before my hon. friend for Lethbridge begins her address, and I would not want to interrupt her, but the degree of heckling has become very difficult. We are in a late sitting in an emergency debate, and the voices carry even more somehow.

The heckling and the interruptions violate our rules, and so as a point of order, I wish to remind members that during the debates, standing orders 18, 14 and particularly rule 16 point out how members should conduct themselves. We are not allowed, during debate, to interrupt other members, particularly in a debate as important as this. To have heckling against the member for Courtenay—Alberni, for instance, and to keep heckling, “How did you get here?”, is insulting and unhelpful in an important debate.

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

I thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for a well made point. I would like all members to remember that we have to respect each other's time. We listen, that is what we are here to do, and then we can ask questions.

The hon. member for Lethbridge.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by notifying you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

I propose members imagine a runner. She is prepared for the race and takes her place but, before the bell goes, before the whistle is blown, she takes a moment to lean down and tie her shoelaces together. Securely fastening one shoe to the other, she then turns herself so that she is backwards, facing the starting line with her back rather than her front.

Meanwhile, her opponents are lined up solidly across the start line. Their shoes are properly tied. They are facing the direction of the race in front of them. The whistle is then blown and the runners take off. The runner with her shoes tied together and facing the wrong direction is at a secure disadvantage. This is Canada.

Rather, this is Canada under the current government, with the current Prime Minister making decisions with regard to our natural resource sector, and in particular the development of energy.

This is the Canada that no one deserves to have. This is a Canada that is handcuffed. This is a Canada that is tied by a noose, and it gets even worse: not only tied up with a noose, but then treated as a pinata on the world stage. This is Canada, not the Canada that this generation or future generations deserves, but the Canada that a Prime Minister who is incredibly ignorant, selfish and dedicated to his own image is creating.

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

The member will withdraw those words, please, because those are not parliamentary ways of describing the Prime Minister of this country.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, which words would you like me to withdraw?

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

I think the member know which words to withdraw.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, sorry, but I am not able to hear you.

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

I think the member knows which words to withdraw. We do not insult each other in this House.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, if you could help me out, that would be helpful.

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

I will not repeat those words, but if the member would like—

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to be helpful to my friend from Lethbridge. I would guess that the words “ignorant” and “selfish” certainly were not parliamentary.

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

I appreciate the help from the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. We absolutely do not use insults in the House to refer to other members.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will withdraw my words.

It is important that the House understand that Canadians are rightly concerned about the actions of the Prime Minister and that they are altogether unhelpful, not only to the current state of the country and drawing investment across the border but they are altogether unhelpful for future generations about which every member in the House should care.

We are making decisions today, but more so, we are making decisions for the sake of our future. We are making decisions for 20 to 100, I dare say, several hundred years down the road. If members of the House are not considering that, if we are not able to see with visionary focus toward our future, then we have no business in this place. We have been entrusted with some seats that are very limited, 338 of us making decisions on behalf of a country, each of us common people representing other common people who duly elected us to be here speaking out on their behalf.

With all due respect, I am here today speaking out on behalf of the people of my province of Alberta, who desire to work more so than receive a welfare cheque from the government.

I am here today speaking on behalf of every Canadian who would benefit from energy projects moving forward rather than being handcuffed by the current government.

I am here today speaking on behalf of the generations that will come after me that would like to inherit a country that is vibrant, that is prosperous, that offers them a future.

Bear with me if I become a little passionate defending my country and those who will come after me.

We have a government that has handcuffed this country, that has refused its future from being vibrant. We look at Teck. It was shut out. We look at northern gateway. It was shut out. We look at energy east. It was shut out. We look at Trans Mountain. It was shut out. Project after project has been turned down because of the climate that has been created within the economic sector of the country, and it is wrong and it is being done in the name of so-called environmentalism.

Let us look at that more closely. Let us look at the facts. By developing our own energy sector right here in this country, we are advancing the environmental state of the entire globe. If we develop our own energy sector, we bring greenhouse gas emissions down, because we are investing in technology that is leading us toward net-zero emissions. We are creating technology that is much better for the planet than when we support places like Saudi Arabia in its oil development. To say that we care about the environment is to responsibly develop our energy sector.

The matter at hand is with regard to Teck.

On February 3, Teck publicly pledged to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. This is not something it had to do. This is something it chose to do. It has met every condition that it was asked to meet. It has done everything it was asked to do, yet the goal posts continuously move. Of course it was put in a situation where it withdrew.

It was hearing rumours of the party opposite, the party in power, preparing an aid package for the province of Alberta. It is laughable and yet incredibly sad, incredibly disheartening, incredibly hurtful to a province that again just wants to work.

It is not just about the province of Alberta; it is about a whole country being unified. If the Prime Minister cannot get that right, then what can he get right?

The Prime Minister's primary responsibility is the unity of a country. His second responsibility is the safety and security of its citizens. His third responsibility is the economic prosperity of this nation. His fourth responsibility is to work with other countries around the world to advance our country. On all four fronts, energy development would advance each of them.

The lack of energy development or the refusal to develop that industry and draw development into our country is actually a refusal to take his place as the Prime Minister and lead the country well. It is an abdication of the role that is Prime Minister, and it is wrong. It is leaving us in this place where we are leaderless. It is leaving us in this place where we are setting up a future that lacks hope, a future that lacks vibrancy. Why are we making those decisions? Better yet, why is our Prime Minister making those decisions?

It is creating an environment of chaos. It is creating an environment where investment does not just have a closed door, but it is being altogether repelled.

Investors are not wanting to come into our country. They see that the current federal government is not in support of developing our nation in any way that would be economically advantageous. This is extremely problematic. What gets me even more and what upsets Albertans, and I believe many other Canadians, is the hypocrisy.

The Prime Minister says that he is about the environment, but yet he will not develop the industry in Canada, which would bring down greenhouse gas emissions around the world and would allow us to invest in green tech.

The Prime Minister says that he is all about the environment, but he will go to Senegal, sit down with its government and offer to develop its energy industry, which is not at all environmentally friendly, does not have the same strict regulations that Canada has and certainly does not have the human rights record that Canada does.

In addition to that, I recently had the pleasure of going to Bangladesh and seeing the incredible work that our country was doing, thanks to the generosity of Canadians, with regard to the Rohingya, which is a refugee group that is finding refuge in Cox's Bazar. In that area, there is a million of them. They would take out four football fields worth of forest every day in order to cook their food. How dd we respond? Very generously. We decided to put an LNG project in place. Where are we getting the LNG to support this refugee group? Definitely not from Canada. It is from Saudi Arabia.

We are paying to bring LNG from Saudi Arabia in order to support a project that is saving the environment, but we are not actually supporting our own industry. We are supporting Saudi Arabia's industry, which is killing the environment and has absolutely no respect for human rights.

My point is this. The government is more concerned about creating some fictitious image of caring for the environment and the Canadian people, but it is doing absolutely nothing to advance our nation, whether it be the economy or the environment, which, yes, go hand in hand. It is time that the government takes action.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, when I listen to the Conservative speeches, they seem to be refusing to confront the central challenge put forward by Teck Resources.

The letter from the president talks about the need “to have a framework in place that reconciles resource development and climate change, in order to produce the cleanest possible products.” He goes on to say about Teck Resources, “We are also strong supporters of Canada’s action on carbon pricing”, something that the Conservative Party is absolutely against.

Is it not hypocritical to try to pass the blame across the way? In their eagerness to pass the blame on the government for this, are the Conservatives not failing to address this challenge when they disagree completely with the approach of Teck Resources and when they fail to accept the challenge to actually come up with realistic climate policies that will overcome this problem?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, Alberta is an incredible province full of people who are intelligent and hard-working, innovative and creative. They are people who roll up their sleeves and put their hand to the plough in order to get the job done.

If members were to come to my riding of Lethbridge, Alberta, they would see this incredible mix of an urban sprawl, a city of just over 100,000 people, with a college and a university, with entrepreneurs, with innovation taking place and with technology and science advancing. Surrounding us, they would see the agriculture sector. They would see fields, animals and this incredible vibrancy.

Albertans know how to work. Albertans know how to innovate. Albertans know how to identify the problems that we face and how to solve those problems. Therefore, in 2005, in my province, regulations were put in place with regard to heavy emitters. In terms of a cap on oil sands, there is a provincial cap on emissions.

Therefore, we did not need the federal government to dictate this to us. The innovative people of Alberta saw the need. They saw the need to look after the environment, because the environment is what keeps our agriculture sector strong. A healthy environment allows us to feed the world, so of course we are going to take care of the environment.

We also have an energy sector that needs to thrive. Our energy sector is what allows our province and, I dare say, our country to build hospitals, schools, roads, bridges and other infrastructure.

This is my province and this is the province that deserves to be celebrated and not punished.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech and took some notes. She spoke about our responsibility and the decisions we must take in this House for the next 20, 30 and 40 years. She also spoke about a vision for the future, about future generations and about looming chaos. Strangely enough, these are the kind of words that environmentalists generally use when talking about climate warming. I find this strange and rather paradoxical. It reminds me of when tobacco companies, years ago, tried to make us believe that cigarettes were healthy.

Does my colleague believe in climate change? Does she know that fossil fuels contribute to climate change?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, we would first have to come to a common understanding of what progress means. I feel that it would be very difficult for us to find citizens of this fine country who would call it progressive to sit naked in a forest. If we take fossil fuels out of the equation, if we take petroleum products out of the equation, then we can throw away everything from our toothbrushes to our glasses to our shoes to the clothes that we wear to the roof over our head to the seats that we sit on to the homes that we build to the heater that heats them to the car that we drive. I do not define—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, last year, Quebeckers consumed 10.6 billion litres of gasoline. This number has been rising steadily for years. Furthermore, 62% of those 10.6 billion litres came from the United States, and 38% came from Canada.

Some may find it funny that we are supporting Donald Trump's America this way, but we Conservatives believe that Canada would be much better off if we were energy self-sufficient. To get there, we need projects. This week, Canada experienced yet another backlash under the government of the past four years.

For nine years, Teck Frontier had been working on an oil extraction project so that Canada could stop buying oil from the United States and become self-sufficient. This project would have created 10,000 jobs, including 7,000 in operations and close to 3,000 in mine construction. The project would have required investments of $20 billion that would have been beneficial to Canada's economy. We are talking about $70 billion in economic benefits for the various orders of government.

Unfortunately, this project is dead. It died due to government inaction. The government did everything in its power to throw a wrench in the works of this project.

As I said, for nine years, people spent $1 billion preparing the project. They brought in the best specialists in the world to find the best ways to produce oil with the least energy and the best environmental footprint possible. What is more, Alberta's energy sector has reduced its pollution levels by 33% over the past few years.

Everything was ready. In July, the file was placed on the desk of the Prime Minister of Canada, ready for approval. This was the last step in the process. In nine years, every provincial, federal, regional, environmental and economic step had been completed. One of the most important steps was to secure the support of the 14 first nations directly affected by the project.

The current government keeps crowing about national reconciliation. Instead of building bridges, we are seeing barricades going up across Canada. Real reconciliation means working hand in hand on successful projects, not giving away people's money.

As Felix Leclerc said, “The best way to kill a man is to pay him to do nothing”. Unfortunately, the first nations have been victims of this terrible approach, whereas these projects would allow them to work hand in hand with non-indigenous people and be a full partner in prosperity.

Last July, the Prime Minister had a potential project for approval in front of him that was good for the Canadian economy and for all Canadians. Just before the election, perhaps worried, or fearful, about the political implications, the Prime Minister left the file to gather dust on his desk. The election was then called.

After the election, he did not know what to do with the project. He found two ways to throw a wrench in the works. Even though everything had been done properly, the Liberal government, which wanted to really make sure the project was not approved, invented two new demands to see how the industry would react. It was taken by surprise when the company was able to meet both of these new demands. Everything was set to go.

Four days before the project was to be approved, Teck Resources found out that the government had let prominent members of Parliament publicly announce that the project was not good. Members from Kingston and the Montreal area spoke out in opposition to the project.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but when members suddenly contradict the government while it claims to be taking time to think, it sends a message that the government wants nothing to do with the project.

We need to remember that we certainly know people who spoke out against the project. We need to remember that elected officials from Kingston paid for ads criticizing the project. The company got discouraged and decided to abandon the project. Unlike a member who spoke earlier, I will quote the full sentence. The letter signed by the president and CEO of Teck said the following:

...we have, as others in the industry have done, continued to optimize the project to further confirm it is commercially viable.

That is contrary to what those on the other side are saying, namely that the company backed out because the project was not profitable. That is not true.

I would also like to point out that the price of oil is pretty good today. We know very well that it fluctuates constantly. This is a 30- to 40-year project, not a 30- to 40-day project. Those are the facts.

Ultimately, after spending $1 billion, working for nine years, preparing jobs for 10,000 people, garnering $20 million in investments, laying the groundwork for $70 billion in economic benefits for governments, and managing to work with 14 first nations, the company pulled the plug on the project.

Unfortunately, it is not surprising with this government. Since the Liberals came to power, 200,000 jobs in the energy sector have been lost. It would be like all the car and plane companies in Canada closing up shop tomorrow. It would be a national disaster in Ontario and Quebec, and rightly so. In the past four years, 200,000 jobs have been lost. I hold this government responsible. The leader of the government said with a straight face:

We need to phase them out.

This industry is not being phased out fast enough. Pipeline workers are a threat to social security wherever they go. That is what the Prime Minister is saying. There is nothing more insulting than insulting Canadian workers. The Liberals said that they were looking forward to it and it was not going as fast as they would like. What an affront to these Canadian workers. What an affront to this industry that is fundamental to our country. It is the Prime Minister who is acting like that, and it is certainly not for everyone's good.

The Financial Post reported today that $150 billion in investments have been lost since the Liberals took office. Meanwhile, in the United States, production more than doubled over the past 12 years, including under Barack Obama. The Prime Minister's close friend was not afraid to develop his country's full energy potential. He realized that energy self-sufficiency is a good thing and that there is no shame in producing shale gas or shale oil. The United States drilled 670,000 shale gas and oil wells under Barack Obama. I look forward to seeing the reaction of the Quebeckers who love Barack Obama so much when they hear that fact. That is a leader who cares about his country's economy, not a leader who shows contempt for his economy.

Sometimes people say that Quebeckers do not like oil. Need I remind the members that Quebeckers consumed 10 billion litres of oil last year, 62% of which came from the United States? Need I remind the members that 400 Quebec businesses are directly affected by the recently cancelled project? Need I remind the members that 50,000 people in Quebec work for the petrochemical industry? Need I remind the members that Quebeckers are quite familiar with pipelines? Jason Kenney did not invent them; they have been around since 1942.

Quebec has 2,000 kilometres of pipeline. A 248-kilometre pipeline was built in 2012 between Lévis and Montreal. It crosses 26 waterways and 630 parcels of agricultural land. It works so well that nobody knows about it and nobody talks about it. That is a fact in Quebec. There are nine pipelines running under the St. Lawrence, and as far as I know, there are no cyclops fish swimming around. The pipelines were built properly.

Teck's Frontier project died today, and this is really not a good day for Canada or Quebec.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned in his statement that the project was not profitable. It was profitable at one point, but the fact is we are talking about the project now, when oil prices are at $50 a barrel. It does not make economic sense to go forward with that project. When oil prices were at $150 a barrel, that was plausible, but now when it is $50 a barrel, that project is not plausible nor profitable. Can the member speak to that and the price of oil at this moment?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, what I would say to the member is that I know that some people say it is not economically viable. I prefer to stand behind the guys who worked so hard for the last nine years and spent $1 billion to be sure whether it is viable. The quote from his letter confirms “it is commercially viable.”

It is not us who are saying that, but the business itself. We all know that we are not talking about a project for the next 30 days but for the next 30 or 40 years. This is why, yes, that price will be on a roller coaster. Sometimes it is low and sometimes it is high.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Quebec poured his heart and soul into defending the province of Alberta, but in recent years, Quebec's greenhouse gas emissions have dropped by nearly 10% while Alberta's have gone up by nearly 60%. Quebec is doing what needs to be done, but this is like trying to escape from quicksand.

How can my colleague stand up for polluting projects that force his own constituents, his fellow Quebeckers, to swim through quicksand?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, the oil industry has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 33%. Speaking of sand, does the hon. member know that in Quebec the most polluting project in history is McInnis Cement? Does the hon. Bloc member know that the environment minister authorized that project without a BAPE assessment? The person who awarded the most polluting project in history is the Leader of the Bloc Québécois.

I have no lessons to learn from a member of a party whose leader is the most polluting environment minister in the history of Quebec. Those people will never have any lessons to teach us.