Madam Speaker, will it be the Teck Frontier project or the climate emergency? The government no longer has to make that choice.
I will once again talk about the oil sands because they are causing a number of issues. Yesterday, Teck Resources announced that it is cancelling the Frontier project. The Frontier project would have resulted in the permanent destruction of old growth forests, fish habitat and highly biodiverse wetlands that currently cover almost half of the projected site. The neighbouring Dene and Cree indigenous communities would also have suffered the consequences of the project, faced with the risk of losing their traditional knowledge forever.
However, despite the clear conclusions about far-reaching irreversible consequences, and even acknowledging that the greenhouse gas emissions generated by Frontier made it impossible to meet the Paris targets, the joint panel recommended the project.
With this project, some things have been said about the extent of irreversible damage to the environment and natural habitats. An additional 4.1 to 6 megatonnes of CO2 equivalents would be produced over 40 years. That did not matter. A comprehensive study of Wood Buffalo National Park, Canada’s largest national park, found that every aspect of the park is deteriorating and that this project would really not have helped. This key conclusion was ignored. Of the 17 indicators of the park’s environmental health studied by UNESCO, 15 are in decline. This was downplayed.
A 161-page report on this park noted that, without proper intervention, its heritage value would be lost forever. Members can rest assured that I am not going to list everything that is compromised by a project like this: wetlands, disruptions in the migratory paths of birds, others at risk of extinction, massive sections of boreal forest being cut down, subterranean pollution, exposure to toxic substances. I will stop there.
Let me be clear: Nothing I just listed is in the national interest. Despite all of the downsides, that is what the committee retained. It needed to be in the national interest. Defining national interest is another kettle of fish.
The developer withdrew his project. The fact is, the developer knew full well that his project was not viable. It was not viable according to a very important metric for a company: its financial and economic viability.
Teck talked about an oil price of $95 per barrel. Teck used a base price to establish its financial parameters that was not recognized by an international organization that Canada is a member of and which has exceptional credibility. I am referring to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. The institute examined the Teck application. The findings were crystal clear. They described it as reckless or irresponsible and imprudent. That is the Teck project.
According to the legal definition, recklessness is a state of mind where a person or a minority group pursues an action deliberately and without justification by choosing to ignore the risks of such an application. That is recklessness, and that is Teck.
In addition, forecasts by key industry leaders clearly show that the price of oil should be between $60 and $70 per barrel for decades to come and be relatively stable. We should also remember that oil from the oil sands is one of the most expensive to produce.
Even Teck acknowledged in December, to its investors in the Fort Hills project, that the barrel price was going to remain at $60. That was not taken into account in the analysis.
It was the responsibility of the review panel to ask the proponent about the financial information submitted. The panel should and could have asked the proponent to review its forecasts and resubmit them for review. It was the responsibility of the panel to adjust the financial information, which it did not.
I think we are going to have to carefully scrutinize the committee's future conduct. Why would the committee have approved the project, considering the environmental and indigenous concerns, not to mention financial concerns?
I will now get to my second point, namely, the many disputes with indigenous peoples. I highly doubt the government or the House has heard the last of the contentious issues being raised by indigenous peoples.
We keep hearing that indigenous communities support projects like the Frontier project and other current projects. Without going into the details of aboriginal treaty rights and the federal legislation that establishes guardianship of indigenous peoples, it is important to reiterate that indigenous decision-making processes are not monolithic.
Indigenous communities have a governance structure that we should try to understand better in order to enter into respectful dialogue with them. Band councils were created by the federal government, and we cannot regard them as the only legitimate representatives in any kind of discussion. It is important to note that the Supreme Court has recognized hereditary chiefs as being responsible for decision-making regarding their traditional lands, that those chiefs have been speaking out since 2010 when the project was first being developed, that protesters began setting up encampments in 2019, that the company had to get injunctions, that the RCMP moved in in early 2019 — I am not talking about now — and that they arrested 14 protesters.
I think we have a better idea today of what the hereditary chiefs wanted and what they did not want. This project infringes on aboriginal treaty rights.
Some leaders signed agreements, but their arms were being twisted. I can even sum up what some leaders said. They said that they oppose the project but signed anyway so that they could at least get something out of it, since their opposition is never taken into account.
The leaders of Smith's Landing First Nation asked the Government of Alberta for a meeting four times. They had the support of the Northwest Territory Métis. Grand Chief Stewart Phillip from the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs spoke up and rallied other regions, as we have seen.
François Paulette, whom I am always pleased to see at United Nations environmental conferences, is an elder from Smith's Landing First Nation. He has made it clear that the 33 Dene nations oppose the Frontier project and any plan to expand the oil sands. When Mr. Paulette attended UN climate change conferences, such as COP22, COP23 and COP24, he tried to educate all the attendees on the rights of indigenous peoples in Canada.
Alice Rigney, a Dene elder in Fort Chipewyan, said that the Frontier project would completely destroy the land and everything that goes with it, including the people, the birds, the animals, the fish and the water. Others have made similar statements, but I do not have time to read them all because I only have a minute and a half left.
Just because someone signs an agreement does not mean that they are happy about the project. In this case, the testimony shows that it is the lesser evil, but it is evil nonetheless. It is a little like saying that agreeing to take medication means someone is happy about being sick.
The Alberta government created a $1.25-billion program for members of indigenous communities who want to invest in big oil and gas projects. To me, that is buying people. Will the Premier of Albert keep that money and continue to use it to help indigenous people? That should be suggested to him. It would be an act of good faith that would help promote reconciliation.
The Bloc Québécois is pleased that this project has been withdrawn, but I am choosing my words carefully. We still take exception to the lack of professionalism and rigour on the part of the joint review panel, whose work should be closely monitored to ensure that it is making decisions based on facts.