Debates of Feb. 25th, 2020

Teck Frontier Mine Project

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to pick up on this question of whether this project is, was or could be commercially viable.

I know Teck well. In the 2018 annual report for Teck Resources, it said, “There is uncertainty that it will be commercially viable to produce any portion of the resources.”

Teck has been telling me for five years that it is concerned about its oil sands properties, because it does not see any way to move forward unless we get a price of oil above $90. It has not been there for six years and there is no suggestion that it will ever be there again.

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

Madam Speaker, I am also very concerned about the situation. The point is that kind of project is not for the next 30 days or 30 weeks, but for the next 30 or 40 years. In all those years, there will be a real roller coaster of prices. Sometimes the price will be high, sometimes it will be low. This is a long-term project, which is why it has confirmed “it is commercially viable.”

Unfortunately, because the government and Liberal MPs made sure this project would not go through, the Canadian economy will be deprived of billions of dollars.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my esteemed colleague, the hon. member for Louis—Saint-Laurent. It has to do with the question asked by the hon. member for Kitchener South—Hespeler.

Obviously the issue of price and the viability of this project is a real concern. It is a great mystery to me.

In The Globe and Mail, on January 29, CEO Don Lindsay confirmed that “Teck has yet to launch a full feasibility study on the Frontier mine that would help establish whether the project could be profitable.” Mr. Lindsay said, “We need a partner. We need a price.”

I would love to ask Mr. Lindsay, who was without a feasibility study on January 29, how he could tell us less than a month later that this is commercially viable. The price of oil has not changed.

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

Madam Speaker, first of all, I deeply appreciate the fact that my colleague works hard to speak French each and every time she rises, even if it is 10 p.m. Mr. Lindsay did confirm “it is commercially viable.”

I know the Green leader is very concerned with green energy, so I am very pleased to announce, and I know she knows this, that half a billion dollars' worth of projects have been created in Alberta for solar energy. This is in Alberta.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Kings—Hants tonight.

I want to start by saying that I am glad to have this debate. Canadians want to know they can count on our government to make sound decisions to ensure that economically beneficial and environmentally responsible projects are advanced, while upholding our efforts on reconciliation with indigenous peoples.

I hope the discussions we are having this evening will give us a chance to think about meaningful solutions to continue creating good jobs for Canadians and to protect our environment for our children and grandchildren.

Before delving into the withdrawal itself, I want to chart the meticulous and diligent process that underpinned Teck's Frontier project under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, which sets out clearly what needs to be assessed to inform government decision-making.

Canadians have told us they want a government that protects our environment and the health of our communities, and that supports opportunities and economic growth.

With its Frontier project, Teck Resources was making every possible effort to achieve those goals. Teck was proposing to build, develop and rehabilitate a 260,000-barrel-a-day drilling operation located in northeastern Alberta, 30 kilometres south of Wood Buffalo National Park.

When the project was reviewed, the environmental assessment process reflected the integrity of Canadian values, particularly regarding things we have heard about so far such as guaranteed meaningful consultation with indigenous peoples and Canada's contribution to the fight against climate change.

As an essential part of the review process, the former minister of environment and climate change entered into an agreement to establish a joint review panel with the Alberta Energy Regulator in May of 2016. The panel found the project would result in significant adverse effects on asserted aboriginal and treaty rights and would also contribute to existing significant adverse cumulative effects to the asserted rights, use of lands and resources and culture of indigenous groups.

Additionally, on July 25, 2019, the joint review panel for Frontier released its report and concluded the project is likely to result in direct significant adverse environmental effects in a number of areas, including to the physical and cultural heritage of indigenous groups that use the project area, in the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes by indigenous groups, to the Ronald Lake bison herd and to migratory birds and other species at risk that rely on wetlands and old-growth forests. The panel concluded there would be significant cumulative effects in these same areas in addition to cumulative effects on woodland caribou.

Taking into consideration the significant direct and cumulative effects identified that cannot be mitigated, the panel made 77 recommendations to parties. The panel's role was to provide recommendations to inform the minister's decision at the end of the assessment on whether the project is likely to cause significant environmental effects within federal jurisdiction. That consideration was still in progress when Teck decided to withdraw its application.

However, on February 23, Teck informed our government that it wanted to withdraw its regulatory application from the federal environmental assessment process. Under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change can stop an environmental assessment at any time if a proponent informs the minister in writing of their intention to not complete the project.

I have no doubt that this was a very difficult decision for Teck. The letter Teck's CEO sent to the minister clearly demonstrates the need for all levels of government to work together to promote climate action and clean growth.

As Teck's CEO said in his letter, Canada needs to continue to show climate leadership. He believes that Canada has the potential to be a global provider of sustainable, climate-smart resources to support the world's transition to a low carbon future.

The Government of Canada understands the economic importance of the oil and gas sector and the opportunities it provides to hard-working Canadians. At the same time, we must develop these resources in a sustainable manner.

As was also noted in his letter, the Teck CEO stated we need to move beyond jurisdictional and partisan disputes. We must take action on climate change to reduce pollution and thereby provide certainty for business. As he said, “Global capital markets are changing...and investors and customers are increasingly looking for jurisdictions to have a framework in place that reconciles resource development and climate change, in order produce the cleanest possible products.” We agree.

We must continue to work with all levels of government in Canada and with the resource sector to ensure clean and sustainable growth for all. Additionally, the pathway toward indigenous reconciliation must continue to be at the heart of our actions as a government. Connecting and strengthening these goals is something this government has done and will continue to do. That is what Canadians expect from us and that is what we will continue to deliver.

The broad consultations undertaken thus far have improved the Government of Canada's relationship with indigenous groups consulted for the environmental assessment of the Frontier project. Even if the project does not go ahead, the Government of Canada appreciates the important and constructive dialogue it had with indigenous groups throughout the assessment process. The relationships it established reflect the Government of Canada's commitment to reconciliation and will help to manage the effects of development on indigenous peoples going forward.

I can confirm that the federal government carefully examined all the information available and questioned whether it should pursue further studies or request more information.

On all major resource projects, our government looks at the environmental impacts, discusses the economic opportunities and takes into consideration how government decisions affect our work toward reconciliation and climate change commitments. The review of the Teck Frontier oil sands mine project was balancing all of these considerations.

For projects undergoing federal impact assessments, the federal government is putting into practice the principles articulated in the recently enacted Impact Assessment Act that reflect values important to Canadians, most notably, early, inclusive and meaningful public engagement, a predictable and co-operative process and nation-to-nation, Inuit-Crown and government-to-government partnerships with indigenous people.

This government is also committed to decisions based on the best available science and indigenous traditional knowledge and to sustainability for present and future generations.

Our government understands that Canadians want to know they can count on the government to make sound decisions to ensure that projects that are in the best interests of all Canadians will move forward and that we will protect the environment in doing so. We will continue to work toward that goal in the months and years ahead for the betterment of all Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, this is an incredibly serious issue. I have tens of thousands of energy workers in my constituency who looked at this as a bellwether for the province's future. The fact that this company saw that market conditions, created by the Liberal government, had destroyed its capacity to build a project is incredibly concerning. For the member to relitigate some of those aspects of—

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

There is a point of order.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is not the member's usual place.

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

I know, it has been pointed out several times. However, during an emergency debate, members may sit where they wish.

The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

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

Madam Speaker, I just learned that this can be the case in emergency debates. For those of who are new, this is something new.

Alberta has demonstrated that it is a world leader in energy production, yet the member seems to want to relitigate the process that Teck aced. Is the member aware of all the ways that Alberta has led the world in making sure that we have ethical, environmentally friendly energy?

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Madam Speaker, I share my hon. member's concerns. This is personal for me as well. I have extended family members who rely on the resource sector in Alberta for their employment.

The results of the Teck process and the pulling out of this Teck project show us that we need to do better. We need to be working closer together as members of the House and as different levels of government to ensure that we show investors and proponents of projects like this that we can reconcile development of these projects with meeting our climate goals. We know we have to do this for our kids and grandkids, as I am sure my hon. colleague would agree.

I look forward to working with the hon. member and all members in achieving that goal for the betterment of all Canadians.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary repeated many times that the assessment was done properly. I would like to go back to some elements of my speech, which call that statement into question.

First, the assessment was based on erroneous information that set the barrel price at $95. In December, Teck itself told its investors that the price was between $60 and $70. However, the panel never asked for a review of the assessment.

Second, Teck Resources has managed copper and zinc operations, but never oil sands operations. Teck Metals was found guilty of 13 spills in two years in Alberta, which makes it the most polluting company in that province. Teck Coal in the United States has also been found guilty of releasing selenium into the environment.

Therefore, I believe that the assessment was not conducted properly.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question and for her hard work on tackling climate change and protecting the environment.

We followed the process that had been in place since 2012. It was important for us to prove to companies like Teck that wanted to move forward that we were following the existing process.

We realized that there were problems with this process and that we could improve it. This is why we implemented a new process, which shows people who want to develop such projects that we take this seriously. There is now a better process in place, and we invite investors from around the world to come invest in Canadian projects. We have projects ready to go and very effective ways to regulate them.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary spoke about indigenous consultation, so I will quote the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation chief, Chief Allan, who said:

We had no choice but to go on with this thing. We were the last nation that didn’t have an agreement with Teck resources. It’s not like we wanted to pursue this, but we were put in a position of do or die situation and we had to do it.

Chief Gerry Cheezie, who is downstream from the Teck project, said, “Our rights are being trampled.”

The missing and murdered indigenous women and girls and two-spirit people report describes the relationship between work camps, which experience an influx of transient workers who arrive to work in mines or energy industries, and higher rates of sexual assault and harassment. I am curious to know the hon. parliamentary secretary's comments in regard to these kinds of resource extraction industry camps. How do they impact indigenous women and girls? Why is the consultation process one to be praised?

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Madam Speaker, we realize that there were issues with the previous Canadian Environmental Assessment Act that was put in place in 2012. What we have done is put in place the Impact Assessment Act, which will take into consideration all of the issues that have been addressed in the past and ensure that issues such as indigenous buy-in to these projects and climate change are addressed at the beginning of the process, and not at the end where people perhaps feel forced to take part.

We are addressing this, and we are very proud of the fact that we have put in place a new methodology that we think will have positive impacts for Canadians as well as proponents, projects and indigenous stakeholders as well.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the chance this evening to bring my remarks to this discussion as a rural member of Parliament from Nova Scotia.

I believe it is an important time to talk about our energy sector in this country, and I appreciate that the member for Lakeland has brought this motion forward.

I will start by recognizing the role that the energy sector, particularly in western Canada, has played and will continue to play in supporting our prosperity across this country. Many of my colleagues have highlighted that in their speeches here this evening.

The economic benefit that these projects have brought to our country have helped pay for public services from Newfoundland to British Columbia and everywhere in between. In my riding of Kings—Hants there are many residents who have benefited and continue to benefit from these types of projects, and they are not just Alberta projects or western Canada projects. They are truly national projects.

My perspective on the discourse around the Teck Frontier decision, particularly in the last month, is that it was polarized in a very detrimental way. In one sense, many of my Conservative colleagues alluded to the positive impact that this project or similar projects would have on job creation and taxation for public spending in this country, and that certainly resonates with me. However, there is very little acknowledgement of the environmental impacts of these projects and our ability as a country to meet our international climate targets.

Some of my Bloc, NDP and Green colleagues rightfully pointed to the reality that these projects, like Teck, create challenges for us to be able to meet our climate targets and that they have an environmental impact both locally and regionally. However, I think they fail to appreciate that the oil and gas industry will play a reduced but still important role in the Canadian and global economy in the days ahead.

The reality is that Canadians want balance. They want a government that is focused on climate change and protecting the environment, but also supporting a strong economy. The Prime Minister has made this clear time and time again, and we have done that. We have created 1.2 million jobs since 2015 while implementing a price on pollution and reducing the GHG emission gap that the Conservative government had left us in 2015.

I want to provide a couple of examples which I believe illustrate Canadians' desire for a government that is balanced on both sides of this issue.

Canadians overwhelmingly support a price on pollution. They overwhelmingly voted in the last election for parties that want to move forward on environment and climate change. However, Canadians overwhelmingly also support the construction of Trans Mountain pipeline. Canadians are pragmatic, and they want a government that has this balance.

My concern is the tone of this particular debate and narrative in this House. The middle ground on these issues seems to have eroded.

I want to address first the narrative from the Conservatives that Teck represents 10,000 jobs, and that somehow Alberta and western Canada's only way forward is through oil and gas.

The member for Lethbridge suggested that people in her province want to work, but suggested that seemingly the only way forward or the only type of work is in the oil and gas sector. I know that is important, but to suggest that this is the only way forward is, frankly, naive of the other opportunities. I do not mean to be unparliamentary, but I think it sells short the potential that is in western Canada.

I want to talk about the 10,000 jobs. We know that there would be 10,000 jobs if construction had moved forward. However, Teck decided not to move this project forward, and the jobs would have only been created if the project were to be built. The CEO of Teck had mentioned three impediments in being able to move that forward.

One impediment was price. The Government of Canada does not control the world oil price. The project was built on an economic analysis of $95 for a barrel of oil. I believe right now the price of oil on the global market is about $50. Although my Conservative colleagues would talk about the viability of this project, there is no doubt that the analysis was originally built on an expectation of something that is far from reality at this point or in the foreseeable future.

They talked about a partner. The Government of Canada is not involved with supporting a private sector partner to move this forward, and so that would be another impediment. Of course, our government is committed to making sure the pipeline and Trans Mountain happens so that we have the ability to get our resources to market.

However, the narrative in the House has been “if only this project was approved”, which, of course, we did not have the ability to choose to go forward with, and “if only 10,000 jobs would be created” is a fallacy. We cannot tell Canadians that if only this happens they will have 10,000 jobs, because it is selling short and not explaining the nuances of this particular project.

Here is why it is a fallacy. As far as I know, there are currently 38 petroleum or oil and gas projects that have been approved. They could start tomorrow if industry wanted to move them forward. They have gone through the regulatory process, but they are not being built. As much as my Conservative colleagues would suggest the cause is Bill C-69 or other legislative measures that we have taken forward on environment, the reality is that these energy companies are looking at a 40-year window. They are recognizing that the world is making a transition.

We are moving to a low-carbon economy. We are moving on renewable energy around the world, and they are rightfully asking whether they can return their cost of capital. We know that the Canadian energy sector is important and that they do amazing work, but we also know that the process to extract the bitumen from the oil sands is much more energy intensive.

The fact is that we have 38 projects. Some colleagues in this House would be excited by the fact that they are not being built because they would put us further and further away from our emission target, and I can appreciate that. However, I think all Canadians, not just Albertans or those from western Canada, need to understand the importance that these projects have played and the revenue that they have created for our economy to pay for public services. We need to make sure that we can transition and support, if these energy companies do not want to move forward on these projects.

Those who would suggest that the petroleum industry in Canada has no future, or that it is not economically viable, fail to appreciate that transition does not happen overnight. They fail to appreciate the work the Government of Canada has done in the last four years to meet and exceed our Paris climate accords.

In 2015, our government inherited the reality that our country was on pace to miss our international climate targets by over 300 megatonnes. In the four years that we have been in office, we have been able to reduce that gap to 72 megatonnes, and that is not including the measures that we will be bringing forward in this parliamentary session.

My message to my progressive colleagues in this chamber is that we need an industry and we need western provinces that will co-operate and help us get there. We need to be able to work with them accordingly. Having a petroleum industry that provides the needed international product and also helps our country on its path to meet its much-needed GHG emission targets is the best path forward.

I, for one, certainly appreciate Don Lindsay's words on reducing partisanship on these particular issues. We can find a way to balance the reality that the petroleum sector will play an important role in the Canadian economy and the global economy in the days ahead, but it will not necessarily play the same integral role in the next 50 years as it has in the last 50. I think we need to be mindful of that.

I have appreciated the opportunity to speak to this issue this evening, and I welcome some questions from my colleagues accordingly.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have a very short question for the member.

His government made no decision on this. It went until literally the very last moment before there was a withdrawal from the applicant.

Would the member have favoured approval, yes or no?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I think this is the exact problem that I am alluding to, the “yes or no”. I had the opportunity to write an op-ed on my position. I am happy to send it to the member opposite. It is on what I believe to be the best process forward.

Had we chosen to go forward with approving the project, I think it would have had to include concessions in getting the province of Alberta to work on building within our climate plan. If we had chosen not to, we would have had to recognize that this would have played an important role in the Alberta economy and there would have had to be investments to help diversify their economy as a result.

This “yes or no” idea is the problem. It is “yes, and” or “no, but”.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think it was very appropriate for the member to mention that today the price of West Texas Intermediate was around $50 a barrel. I would say to my Conservative friends, who are always champions of the free market, that I think it is important for the House to understand that the price of oil is at a level which is completely unsustainable to support oil sands development.

We are looking at where we need to go in the future and the ways in which we need to diversify the economy, particularly in Alberta.

I am wondering if my hon. colleague across the way has heard of the organization Iron & Earth, which is made up of oil sands workers and people who are in the oil and gas industry, workers who are interested in transitioning their skill set away from oil and gas into the renewable energy economy of the future. Could the member offer some comments to the House on how worthwhile that project is, as it is led by workers who are in the oil and gas industry?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I certainly enjoy collaborating with the member opposite on the agriculture committee, where we do work outside of this House.

The question in particular was about Iron & Earth. I am not familiar with the organization specifically, but the broader question was on how we can ensure that we make that transition happen.

We all know that transition needs to happen, and I alluded to it in my speech. Some of my Conservative colleagues do not give credence to the fact that we do need to transition. The oil and gas industry is not going to play the same role in the next 50 years as it did in the last 50 years.

Transition is important, but we need to recognize that the oil and gas industry is going to play a role in the global economy in the days ahead. There is no way in which we are going to shut it down overnight, nor should we.

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

Madam Speaker, the word “transition” is one of those things that papers over urgency. This is an urgent matter. Parliament passed a motion that we are in a climate emergency when Scott Brison was the hon. member for Kings—Hants. The hon. member's predecessor voted for that motion that we are in a climate emergency.

I agree that there will be fossil fuels used for some time to come, but new investments in fossil fuels are clearly not compatible with reaching our Paris objectives. I wonder if the member would comment on that.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am glad the hon. member recognized that the hydrocarbon industry will play a role in our economy in the days ahead.

I am the youngest member of this governing side of the House. I know that we need to do more on climate change. I know that we need to move in that direction, but I also recognize that it has to be balanced. We can both support an oil, gas and petroleum industry in this country and meet our international targets and exceed them.

The proof in the pudding, so to speak, is the fact that we have done that in the last four years. We have moved in the right direction. We are only 72 megatonnes over our target. Not considering the investments that are going to be made in this Parliament, we will meet and exceed our targets while not necessarily saying no to these types of jobs that are going to be important in the days ahead.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton. I am looking forward to hearing his comments on this as well.

A lot of my colleagues have spoken very eloquently in this emergency debate, brought forward by the member for Lakeland in her passion for her constituency. I am proud to be able to speak along with her about the crisis that is happening in western Canada within our energy sector right now.

I have been here since 11 o'clock this morning and I have heard many speeches regarding the opposition motion. We can tie a lot of these together. I will touch on some of the words that our Liberal colleagues have said throughout the day.

I also want to talk from the perspective of my constituency, my colleagues, my friends and my family. A lot of people who are very close to me work in the energy sector. One of my best friends worked in the energy sector during his time at university. He was a roughneck. He was a rig hand. Now he is an anesthesiologist. People do leave the oil field and get different careers. That should be their choice, not the choice of a select few elite who think their jobs are not worth having anymore.

I have heard that a lot in the chamber today. There is a group of people within the chamber who think they should have the say as to whether oil and gas workers, hard-working men and women, deserve to keep their jobs. That is not right. They are one of the most innovative groups of people in our country. They work hard to ensure that what they do is cleaner, greener and better than any other country in the world. To have a group of people in this chamber say they are not good enough is absolutely ridiculous. Those members should all take a long look in the mirror when they get home.

Standing up for our constituents is what we should be doing. I am not sure if they are doing that. I am not sure if they sent out householders or surveys on whether their constituents are against Canadian oil and gas. I have been in the chamber for only three months, but I was an MLA for eight years. Canadians would prefer to have Canadian gas going into their gas tanks. Whether in the Maritimes or in B.C., Canadians would prefer to have Canadian energy heating their homes.

That is what this emergency debate is about. It is about whether we think Canada should be a country of yes: yes we can build a project, yes we believe in our energy sector and yes we believe in the hard-working men and women who work in our oil and gas sector. We think they have the right to try to make their companies cleaner and greener. I believe they deserve to have that chance and not be phased out by people in this chamber.

I have heard a lot of people quoting, cherry-picking quotes from the Teck CEO's letter. My hon. colleagues do not seem to be reading the whole letter. I will quote from that letter:

We are disappointed to have arrived at this point. Teck put forward a socially and environmentally responsible project that was industry leading and had the potential to create significant economic benefits for Canadians. Frontier has unprecedented support from the indigenous communities and was deemed to be in the public interest by a joint federal-provincial review panel following weeks of public hearings and a lengthy regulatory process. Since the original application in 2011, we have, as others in the industry have done, continued to optimize the project to further confirm [its commercial viability].

I have heard comments about the spot price of oil and West Texas Intermediate right now. It is $50 a barrel. That is true. I understand businesses are still going in the oil sands in Alberta. Syncrude is still operational. It is weird. A company can still make money at this price.

For opposition members to now be captains of industry and talk about energy products and say it could not be done for commercial viability is not true. If the government had been able to approve that project and let that company make the choice after the project was approved, it would have been an interesting position. If the government gave the project the go-ahead three weeks ago, would it have agreed that the project may have continued to be implemented in Alberta?

Do not take my word for it that this was a political decision. Lorne Gunter published a great article a couple of days ago:

The fault is clearly with the [Prime Minister's] government's entirely spineless response to blockades across the country.

I will quote the article:

Make no mistake, the end of Teck Resources’ Frontier oilsands mine is [the Prime Minister's] fault—plainly, clearly, unequivocally.

The project’s cancellation also means the radical fringe is in charge of Canada, not the government, the courts or the police.

Teck’s decision, announced Sunday, will also have far-reaching effects on the entire Canadian economy, not just the energy sector.

There is no doubt this is [the Prime Minister's] fault.

The article went on to say:

[The Prime Minister] showed he wasn’t interested in being in charge when, last Tuesday, he said the answer to the lawless at the blockades was more touchy-feely consultation and listening.

He ends the article:

Don’t ask a federal Liberal MP or cabinet minister what Canada’s First Nations policies are. Don’t even ask the majority of Indigenous Canadians who want to improve their communities by participating in projects such as Teck Frontier and Coastal GasLink.

Go ask the unelected, unaccountable radicals at the blockades, because they’re in charge now.

Is that the country we are going to live in? I have three young children, ages six, four and three. Is that the country we want to pass on to the next generation where there is no rule of law? Is this not the place where we make decisions? Is this not the place where we want to make sure big, nation-building projects can be built?

I have heard almost every left-wing falsehood this evening, including the Victoria MP saying we have to be cleaner while Victoria dumps 100,000 litres of raw sewage in the ocean every year. Thanks for that. Maybe the MPs should clean up their own backyard first before talking about what we should do in western Canada, in Saskatchewan and Alberta. That would be a good start.

I want to talk about some of my constituents and some of the hard-working people who put pipes in the ground: the people who work at Evraz and the people who want to go to work. When I was door-knocking, I talked with Wade on his doorstep. It was snowing so I did not see it at first, but he pointed to the “for sale” sign on his front yard. He told me he had not worked for 18 months and could not afford his house anymore. His wife just left him, so he could not afford the payments.

These are real Canadians who are having difficult times. It is incumbent upon the government to support all of Canada. The crux of the motion is that we should have had this conversation when this happened in the automobile and aerospace sectors because those jobs are as important as the jobs in western Canadian provinces. They are as important as our oil and gas sector. We have had those debates and we had comments from members saying maybe we should not have this debate. Maybe this is not a crisis and maybe this is not important.

I hear it being said about my constituents that maybe their jobs are not important and they have to get new jobs. There are 300,000 new clean jobs in this country. Can anyone name them? Probably not, because a lot of them are in the oil and gas sector, which are doing clean energy projects.

Before we had a group of people in this chamber saying our hard-working men and women in the oil and gas sector and in the construction sector are dangerous in small communities. They help build small communities. They are not dangerous people in those communities.

Before we have a group of men and women in this chamber saying the hard-working men and women in the oil and gas sector would not get the job done and have a cleaner energy sector, we should give them that chance before we phase them out. We are going to be here fighting for them, making sure they have that chance now and in the years to come.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

There are a lot of people standing now for questions and comments, so I am going to ask members to keep their interventions to about 40 to 45 seconds only. That is for responses as well as questions.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for his speech.

He glibly claimed that the Prime Minister is responsible for decisions that a company made for purely financial reasons.

My colleague expressed concerns about the future for his three children. I also have three children. My youngest is fully aware that the future also depends on the environment.

Can my colleague confirm whether his children are learning about both the environment and the economy? On this side of the house we know that the two go hand in hand.