Debates of Feb. 25th, 2020

Teck Frontier Mine Project

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

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree with my friend from Calgary Centre. The billionaire owners and the billionaire lobby on behalf of fossil fuels is why over the last 28 years we have not made progress but have gone backwards. The fossil fuel lobby, big oil, is responsible for criminal actions such as lying about the science and keeping governments from taking action when it is required.

Right now, we know that these investors are moving away from fossil fuels because it does not make economic sense for them. However, governments have to do much more. We have to use our collective will to ensure that we are protecting our societies and planning this transition away from fossil fuels in an orderly fashion.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to what my colleague had to say and I thank her for her lucid speech. I think this was the first lucid speech on the environment this evening.

I do not know whether she agrees with me that we wasted a good part of the evening discussing an economic project that is not viable and a private company's decision. I suppose she also believes that, if there is an emergency debate to be had, then it should probably be on energy transition and climate change.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Jonquière for his question.

I completely agree with him. It is clear that there is a climate emergency. It is urgent that we transition to renewable energy and to a sustainable, clean-growth economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands' speech was something we really needed here. I want to pick up on her comments around stranded assets. She talked eloquently about the environmental risk we are facing in this crisis, but there is also an economic crisis facing Canada, coming at us like a freight train. That is those stranded assets.

Jeremy Rifkin, who was the keynote speaker at the Generation Energy meetings in Winnipeg a couple of years ago, one of the world's most respected energy economists, has come out recently with predictions that there will be widespread stranded assets in the fossil fuel industry not in 20 years, not in 10 years, but in eight years, in 2028, and that Canada would be one of the most severely affected countries in the world for these stranded assets, and why that really speaks to the desperate need we have for this just transition, for a green new deal.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are a handful of people in the House who I know have actually read and understood the IPCC 1.5°C report and I know that, as a scientist, he is one of them. If anybody else wants to learn more, I recommend my friend.

The stranded assets issue of unburnable carbon is huge. The world of climate finance is gaining ground, with people like Mark Carney, who has now been named by the UN Secretary-General as a special envoy on climate finance around the world.

Another source, again not someone one associates with eco-action, is Jeff Rubin, former chief economist with CIBC World Markets. He has said the same thing as Jeremy Rifkin from the U.S. Jeff Rubin said that when the stranded assets start emerging, when we have to see slashing of fossil fuel dependency, one of the first sectors and one of the first regions of fossil fuel production to close down and be left with bankruptcies is going to be the oil sands.

Therefore, we need to protect fossil fuel workers from our investing in a non-future for them. We have to invest in a real future for them, for their jobs, for their kids, and again, for a hospitable climate to support us all through to the end of this century. It is still a gamble whether we can pull it off, but if we pretend to be grief-stricken by a sensible decision to stop Teck Frontier, we have a long way to go to get to real climate action.

[Kenny Chiu, Conservative, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as a rookie member of the House, I thank my colleague, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, for bringing some context into the discussion tonight and talking about the climate emergency motion that was passed in the last Parliament.

Allow me, in the late evening, to ask some dumb questions. I have two on which the member perhaps could educate me.

First, are we actually facing a climate emergency, which is so important, that in a very short period of time this whole civilization may end? I am not a denier of the climate emergency. I am just ignorant, perhaps. Why is the Liberal government still renovating the Centre and East Blocks, which will take an estimated 15 years? How much carbon will that renovation generate?

During the discussion tonight, I heard a lot of heckling. I was also involved in asking members “Did you walk to Ottawa?”

The Conservatives believe in pragmatism. We believe in conserving the environment in a way that would actually make a difference. If it is so important, then why is the House not doing something about it?

Second, Canada's accounts for 1.7% of the global carbon emissions. If we shut down, if we depopulate Canada, it would make a meagre difference. China, India and the developing countries in the world would displace it in no time.

Would it not be better if Canada provided the technology for cleaner energy, like Coastal GasLink, so the rest of the world, like China, could benefit from it?

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

Mr. Speaker, first, what can we do in this place?

I have proposed in previous Parliaments to change our sitting hours. I have proposed what I call the Fort Mac work schedule. We would come here for three weeks at a time and work for five and a half days. This would cut down on the requirements of our job to travel back and forth to our riding. Three weeks here; three weeks in the constituency. That would dramatically reduce the cost of flights that are paid for by the people of Canada. Taxpayers cover our flights to work.

On a personal basis, I have not taken a vacation that involved flying in the last 14 years. Where it is discretionary, I do whatever I can to avoid flying. The reality is that our society is hardwired to fossil fuels.

Climate shaming and guilting people is not productive. We need to move with positive solutions that allow us to transition off our dependency on fossil fuels.

The second question related to Canada's meagre role in the world. I do not really understand. For someone who aspired to be Prime Minister, I know the Leader of the Opposition thought it was a selling point to argue that Canada was too meaningless to matter. I will never take that position.

Canada led on fighting to protect the ozone layer. We were a very small contributor to damaging the ozone layer, but we led the way to protect it. That is what Canada needs to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Saint-Jean.

As much as I enjoy debating in the House, and I am really starting to like it, I have to say that this emergency debate took me by surprise.

On one side, we have the Bloc Québécois, which recognizes the climate emergency, believes in energy transition and ending fossil fuel subsidies, and wants to invest in clean, green energy. On the other, we have the Conservatives, who ignore the climate emergency and refuse to even acknowledge it because they see the world through an economic lens.

If we carry on like this, we are going to hit a wall. Do I really need to remind everyone that Canada's plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is one of the worst in the G20? Simply put, this government does not have a real plan, at least not a credible one. Its plan involves nothing more than flowery speeches by the Prime Minister and a $12.6-billion pipeline expansion to export oil. Except that there will be nothing to export because the Frontier mine turned out not to be economically viable and will not be going ahead.

Basically, the Frontier project and Trans Mountain expansion have this in common: There is no money to be made. The Conservatives summoned us here tonight because Alberta is upset. They care only about the economy, and not at all about our planet or those who live on it.

We in the Bloc Québécois are thrilled about Teck Resources' decision to withdraw its application for its oil sands development project. We are pleased and relieved, but we are still worried. We are pleased because we are thinking that if a company like Teck Resources has finally seen the light and can acknowledge the urgent need to reduce global carbon emissions and support measures to fight climate change, perhaps the Conservatives could see the light.

We are also relieved, but perhaps not as relieved as the government, which was really saved by the bell. Teck Resources made the decision that the government probably would never have had the courage to make. It is all very convenient. We in the Bloc Québécois are relieved because, as it turns out, the project will not be going forward.

The Bloc Québécois was the first party to call out the government on the approval of the Frontier mine and to denounce the Prime Minister's doublespeak on the fight against climate change and his insistence on paying for dirty projects with taxpayers' money. I rose several times in the House and called on this government to drop the project because it was the right thing to do.

Even if this project had been economically viable, it certainly was not environmentally sustainable. I said “even if” because, from what I understood from Teck Resources' decision, this project was far from being economically viable. However, that is not what I want to discuss here tonight.

The letter Teck Resources sent to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change states that Teck Resources firmly believes in the need to address the issue of climate change. It also believes that Canada has an important role to play globally as a supplier of natural resources.

The Bloc Québécois thinks that the debate on the Frontier project withdrawal is an opportunity for Canada to clarify its position and policies on non-renewable energy development as part of the fight against climate change. The government should launch a public conversation and establish an official dialogue with partners from the provinces and Quebec on a fair transition and an exit plan for oil and gas. That is what we should be debating this evening, not the economic impact on only one part of the Canadian population. Greenhouse gas emissions know no borders. This concerns much more than a single province.

I think it is important to make the point that although we completely support Alberta's workers, we think the current issue is far more political than people are letting on right now. Instead of focusing on resentment, we should be working together on finding solutions for the future, to ensure a fair transition that will provide Albertans truly viable and sustainable economic prosperity.

I also wonder about the relevance of this emergency debate because this was a decision made by a private company. Even the government, which seems to be rather divided among its own benches, did not debate the issue. As parliamentarians, should we debate every decision made by private Canadian companies? Since that is what led us here this evening, we will indulge in the debate, but in our own way.

Rather than seeing this decision as an economic defeat, we are seeing it as an opportunity to develop an Albertan and Canadian economy that is no longer dependent on fossil fuels, because, with all due respect, we believe that a healthy economy is a diversified economy.

It is time to think of the future. There is nothing to indicate that the price of oil will significantly increase in the short- or medium-term. In any case, oil from the oil sands is among the mostly costly to produce.

Teck came to its own conclusions and made its decision. Perhaps the Conservatives and the Premier of Alberta could also come to some conclusions. They could start by recognizing that their economic model, their resource extraction model, is outdated. They could also start thinking of forward-looking solutions for their own people.

There is something rather ironic happening in the House this evening. While members of the House were getting all worked up defending projects that pollute, I attended a conference given earlier by Guy Dauncey on the climate emergency. What party had the most representatives at that conference? That was the Conservative Party. I am therefore wondering whether there are more Conservative members than we think who are more interested in the fight against climate change than in debates on non-existent projects that are the subject of non-decisions on the part of the government.

Mr. Dauncey believes that we can reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 65% by 2030 and by 100% by 2040. That is much more ambitious than the government's proposal.

For that to happen, we need to change our behaviour, our habits and our investments. If Teck's Frontier project had gone ahead, it would have released between 4.1 megatonnes and 6 megatonnes of CO₂ per year for 40 years. The year 2067 is 17 years past Canada's net zero deadline. Those emission levels are clearly not compatible with Canada's GHG reduction targets.

Other people always have to pay the price. Quebec's efforts to reduce GHG emissions are constantly being negated by the carbon footprint and environmentally irresponsible behaviour of western provinces such as Alberta. Canada would have to reduce its emissions by 77 megatonnes just to meet the Harper government's targets. Once again, Quebec is always having to pick up the slack for Alberta's increasing emissions.

Earlier, I had an opportunity to remind my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent about this, and I will remind everyone now: Between 1990 and 2017, Quebec's emissions fell by 8.7% while Alberta's rose by 58%. In 2017, Quebec's GHG emissions totalled 78.6 megatonnes.

The oil sands alone account for 87 megatonnes in 2020. That is more than Quebec's total emissions. The oil sands, a single industry, generate more pollution than every sector in Quebec, which has Canada's second-highest population. Nevertheless, some complain that we are not doing enough.

By comparison, Ontario produces 158.7 megatonnes of GHG emissions, which is 22.1% of Canada's total emissions. Quebec is not alone. Ontario is making a real effort to reduce emissions. Nova Scotia, the Yukon, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island have also reduced their emissions.

The figures show who is doing their part in Canada. I will certainly not win any friends by saying this, but I am not here to make friends. I am here to protect my constituents. They are worried about the future of their planet. I am here to stand up for them, and that is why they elected me. I will continue to stand up for them as long as someone is trying to force polluting projects like Frontier down our throats, in the midst of a climate crisis.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I see many members rising. We will limit each intervention to 45 seconds.

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

Mr. Speaker, let's talk about Quebec in a positive, economic way.

Is the hon. member proud of the McInnis Cement project, the most polluting project in history, which was not reviewed by the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement, did not participate in a carbon market for a year and a half, and was sponsored by the most polluting environment minister in the history of Quebec, the current leader of the Bloc Québécois?

Does the hon. member agree with the fact that oil consumption is up in Quebec? It is unfortunate for her, but that is the reality. Last year, 10.6 billion litres of oil were consumed, and 62% of that oil came from the United States. Is she okay with the fact that we are doing a lot to help the Americans under Donald Trump?

Is she aware that Alberta is getting the largest solar energy project in Canada?

Is she also aware that the Liberal carbon tax exempts big polluters, while in Alberta, Premier Kenney just adopted a measure that requires major polluters to pay a tax?

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

Mr. Speaker, I see that my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent really likes that argument. That was in 2012, and it is now 2020. We are talking about our future, for future generations and my generation. I invite my colleague to catch up to 2020.

[Nelly Shin, Conservative, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, many comments were made tonight about the Conservative Party only talking about the economy, as if it is such a bad thing. I come from a background where I did a lot of counselling, and finances broke families and marriages. It is a very real part of the dialogue and discourse that needs to happen here. Therefore, I would appreciate that when other members in the House discuss economics, they also consider some compassion when doing so.

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

Mr. Speaker, talking about the economy is not a bad thing, but there is more to life than the economy. For instance, there is the current crisis. The government says, and the opposition parties say, that we have to find a balance between the two. However, projects like Teck Frontier do not really strike a balance between the economy and the environment.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is staggering that the Liberals' joint review panel was not considering the impacts on our climate commitments. As we are moving forward, beyond Teck, what is needed for a framework for decision-making when it comes to looking at projects and whether they are going to help us meet our climate obligations?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

I think we need to start by determining whether a project would cause pollution. In this case, the project clearly would. That brings me to the energy transition, which is what we should be working towards. We need to stop subsidizing dirty energy and start subsidizing clean, green energy. Yesterday I introduced a bill in the House to force the government to meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets. We can start by putting viable, long-lasting mechanisms in place for our future.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe I am of the same generation as the hon. member, being 29 years old when I was elected this past October. I am very pleased to be one of the young members of what is a very young caucus. We take very seriously the reality that is facing our children, and my two children.

The reality is that the Canadian energy industry is by far and above the best source of clean, ethically sourced energy petroleum in the world, yet the attitude of the Bloc and the way it is approaching this debate is like the parable of removing the speck out their brother's eye when there is a log in their own.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not have kids yet, but I do not know whether I want to bring any into the world because I do not know where this world is heading. I understand that the member is worried about his children's future, but more subsidies for fossil fuels will not be good for our children.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a bit like my colleague, I too am wondering about the need to hold an emergency debate tonight regarding a decision made by an independent company.

To explain my point a little further, I would like to talk about a mine project. I would like to tell the story of a mine project dedicated to producing 100,000 barrels of oil a day. This mine is located 70 kilometres north of Fort McMurray. It is not the mine we are talking about today. It is a mine project that was cancelled in early 2014, when the price of oil first began to plummet. The production costs of that mine were estimated to be $11 billion. It became clear that the mine was going to become increasingly costly to run, because the production costs were increasing and the price of oil was dropping. The mine I am talking about is Joslyn North, which was cancelled in 2014, under the Conservatives.

This leads me to wonder whether the Liberals are entirely to blame for everything happening right now. I will come back to the Liberals later. I will not forget them.

However, this does raise the point that the Conservatives may be creating a tempest in a teapot by going off in all directions, possibly in the hope of promoting their political interests. I do not know, nor do I claim to know, all of their beliefs or their objective in this. However, it seems to me that, when we look at this issue from a factual perspective, there are similarities between the two projects. The Teck Frontier project was a mine located 110 kilometres north of Fort McMurray that would have produced 260,000 barrels of oil. There seem to be similarities. The context is pretty much the same, with the drop in the price of oil and the increase in production costs. Don Lindsay mentioned that this context is what led to the project being abandoned.

It seems to me that the Conservatives are, unfortunately, trying to paint the Liberals in a greener light than they deserve.

It is true that Alberta is currently facing its share of challenges and setbacks. Alberta has gotten a lot of bad news recently. Unfortunately, this evening, rather than finding constructive solutions to Alberta's long-term problems, the Conservatives are needlessly fanning the flames of Albertans' anger. This evening's debate will not bring back the Teck Frontier mining project, whether they want that or not, and I for one do not.

What is happening right now is that the Conservatives are oil junkies. They refuse to face the truth. Unfortunately for them, this is no longer the time of Ralph Klein's infamous prosperity cheques. Alberta is no longer swimming in money from oil royalties. The percentage of revenue generated from oil development in Alberta has been falling since the 1980s and reached a record low of 6% in 2009.

Unfortunately, after seeing the writing on the wall, instead of following Norway's lead and using the additional money to overhaul its tax system and create a fund to facilitate a green transition, Alberta said, “Drill, baby, drill”. Instead of anticipating an inevitable problem and reviewing its tax system, Alberta tried to keep swimming in oil royalties by telling itself that it would just produce more oil to make more money, kind of like a junkie who slowly gets used to a harmful drug and needs more and more to satisfy their needs.

The problem is that the Liberals also shoulder some of the blame. The Liberals did not help Alberta with its addiction. Instead of helping Alberta get out of the oil and gas business and contribute to a real green transition, the Liberals contributed to its addiction, especially with the Trans Mountain project.

Donald Lindsay of Teck Resources mentioned three conditions that were essential for the operation of the Frontier mine project. There had to be a fairly high price per barrel, which the government has no control over. There had to be investor participation, which the government has no control over anymore. However, the last condition for moving forward with the Frontier mine project was the construction of a new pipeline.

I find it odd that the Conservatives are accusing the Liberals of undermining the Frontier mine project when they contributed to one of the conditions for the project. It seems to me that they are speaking out of both sides of their mouth.

The government was responsible for the pipeline construction. It contributed to Alberta's dependence on oil. In 2017, 13 companies reserved an apportionment on the future Trans Mountain pipeline, which was supposed to transport 22,000 barrels a day. Teck Resources was one of the companies that reserved a pipeline apportionment. These agreements lasted 15 to 20 years. The government indirectly helped the Frontier mine project.

I find it sad that the Frontier mine project became an argument in favour of Trans Mountain, much like Trans Mountain became an argument for the implementation of Teck Frontier.

This may bring back some memories for some of the more seasoned members in the House who remember the popular Hygrade sausage ad that said, “More people eat them because they're fresher. They're fresher because more people eat them.” That perfectly describes the interdependence of Teck Frontier and Trans Mountain. The problem is that this massive sausage machine ultimately does nothing but force-feed us high meat.

In conclusion, I am happy for future generations that the Frontier mine project has been abandoned. The transition to green energy is inevitable and necessary. The problem is that the decision to abandon the project was not made by the government, and certainly not by the Conservatives.

I will take good news wherever I can get it. I hope that next time we will be the ones deciding not to move forward with this kind of project.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Seniors]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech and her kind words about the Liberals' responsibilities on this file. I really appreciate that.

We may not agree on everything, but we have many things in common on this file.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who participated in tonight's emergency debate. We have had a lovely evening even though I do not see the point of an emergency debate about one business' purely economic and strategic decision.

My colleague is well aware that the environment and the economy go hand in hand. Both of our parties are supportive of environmental issues. We have targets to meet.

Does my colleague agree with us that we need to work toward the Paris targets using an intelligent, progressive, cost-effective approach for the whole country, not just one province?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is like asking me if I agree with apple pie. It may not be my favourite kind of pie, but I am not against it.

I cannot be against intelligent economic development and the transition to green energy. Of course I agree with those things. However, we need to take steps that will enable us to meet our targets. That is why the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia introduced a bill to ensure Canada meets its Paris targets. Of course the Bloc Québécois will support any initiative to make that happen.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know that this debate is almost finished, but I will continue to speak in French since I am addressing my Bloc colleagues.

This is not the Bloc that I remember. I was a child of Bill 101 and a member from the west. I experienced the referendums and I saw an entire generation of young people leave Quebec to find work out west. I am a proud Albertan. I listened to the Bloc and I am trying to understand why it opposes Teck Frontier, a project that was to be developed entirely in Alberta and that was under the jurisdiction of that province.

Is it now acceptable to the Bloc that the federal government interfere in provincial jurisdictions under the pretext of the environment and that it stop a project such as this one? The company said that it abandoned the project because of the Liberals. There are more than 30 projects that will produce more barrels of oil once the price of crude is more appealing.

Is it the Bloc's current position that federal interference in provincial jurisdictions is acceptable when done in the name of the environment?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague seems to be forgetting that Alberta is still part of Canada and that Canada is still part of the world. If Alberta lived under a bell jar and it alone were affected by the impact of the megatonnes of CO2 that it produces, perhaps we would not hear that question as often and perhaps Alberta would be less happy to be living in these circumstances.

The matter must be analyzed in the context of a global crisis. The last time I checked, Canada is still a signatory to the Paris agreement, and as such, it is important that it meet its targets, that is, until Quebec is independent and able to meet them more quickly.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until later this day at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 12 a.m.)