Debates of Feb. 25th, 2020

Teck Frontier Mine Project

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

Can we please respect the people talking?

The hon. member for Jonquière may answer the question.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I feel for people going through hard economic times right now.

In politics, there will always be a power dynamic, but it comes down to one basic thing for me. Whenever a member says his or her province has been left out in the cold or has fallen through the cracks in the Canadian federation, I, as an elected representative from Quebec, feel it is my responsibility to repeatedly point out, as I am doing today, that Quebec has been left out in the cold. If I failed to do that, I could not face my constituents.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am sorry I am not able to address the member in French. I am taking French lessons and working on that.

I wanted to point out that as a progressive in Alberta who represents Edmonton Strathcona, I also represent the people who did not vote for the Conservatives in Alberta, which is about 40% of Albertans. As a large portion of the francophone community is in my riding, I would like to clarify something.

Do I understand correctly that the member was not saying that Alberta had not contributed to our country? I do think the member did not mean to say that Alberta has not contributed to our country, though that was what I heard. I just wanted to clarify that Alberta's oil and gas sector has had an important role in Canada, building Alberta and Canada. I just wanted to get some clarification on that.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I acknowledge Alberta's contribution to the Canadian economy and the development of this country, but at this point, we need to start thinking about getting out of fossil fuels.

That is what I meant by what I said.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

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.

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

Madam Speaker, I will make a comment and follow it with a question.

Alberta oil, much of which flows through my constituency of Battle River—Crowfoot, goes through a small town called Hardisty. The western Canada select price is approximately $36 a barrel. Most of that oil goes to the United States, where in west Texas it is mixed off, with the various processes involved, and sold for approximately $50 a barrel.

Is the member aware that the 60% of oil Quebec imports from the United States is actually in part Alberta crude that comes from the oil sands?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. The oil we purchase in Quebec comes from Enbridge's Line 9B reversal. It therefore comes from the oil sands.

Since the gas we buy for our cars is from Alberta, we are contributing to Alberta's finances.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is important to acknowledge the importance of the price of oil in many of the decisions that are being made with regard to the marketplace.

The last question was interesting, and my question is based on it. The member mentioned that oil goes through the United States, where it is then sent back up north at an increased value. This is one of the reasons the government approved a pipeline to take oil to the coast.

Does my colleague from the New Democratic Party agree that when we talk about resource development, the economy, the environment or indigenous issues, we have to look at the broader picture? The economy and the environment do, in fact, go hand in hand, and it is important for us to consult.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member for Winnipeg North that I am not a member of the NDP. I am a member of the Bloc Québécois.

I think there are three things that are globally recognized: respect for human rights, including the rights of indigenous peoples; a healthy environment; and a climate that feels safe, in other words, without constant flooding or drought. These three things are recognized around the world.

Indigenous peoples around the world are standing up for their rights.

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

Madam Speaker, I really respect the member for her respect of the environment.

I want to get back to the economics of this project. The company has said, when we read between the lines, that it could not find a partner to carry this project forward. It needed $20 billion.

One of the Conservative members pointed out that companies do not look at spot prices. Well, of course they do not. They look 20, 30 or 40 years down the road. Increasingly, the economic analysis has shown that this is not going to be a good investment for 30 years. That is why big companies, like BlackRock and other big investments firms, are pulling back from the fossil fuel industry.

I wonder if the member could comment on that, because that is at the crux of all of this.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. It gives me a chance to add some information.

First, Teck Resources is likely one of the last in a long list of companies that have abandoned planned investments in the oil sands. I can name several, including giants like Shell, Statoil, Total, ConocoPhillips, Marathon Oil and Samson Corporation. All these companies have pulled out of the oil sands.

There is another important piece of information that may have played into the Teck Resources decision last Friday, two days before it announced its withdrawal. In reporting its results for 2019, the company announced a writedown on the value of its minority stake in Fort Hills, a Suncor Energy oil sands mine. The company itself recognized that this was no longer working, that there was a problem. This was above all an economic decision.

From an environmental perspective, we see this as an excellent decision.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I do not want to eat into the time for questions and comments, but before I resume debate, I want to give a reminder to members. Most of the members who were heckling back and forth have been in the House for quite a few years and know what the rules of the House are. That includes a few leaders in the House. I would not want that to rub off on some of the newer members.

I hope that members will respect each other. If they wish to debate, they can get up to be recognized and then participate in the debate.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Victoria.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member of Parliament for Edmonton Strathcona.

Teck Frontier was never the solution the Prime Minister and the Liberals said it was, and it is not the solution the Conservatives are now claiming it is. Teck is another example of the Prime Minister's failure of leadership on fighting climate change and creating jobs for the future.

I am surprised that we are here for this so-called emergency debate. How does this debate constitute an emergency?

Teck pulled out of a project that was a bad decision economically, given that its business case relied on extremely high oil prices, for decades to come, of over $95 a barrel, much higher than what Teck told its own investors and almost double what our oil prices are currently. It was an even worse environmental decision, given the astronomical CO2 emissions from the project and the impact on land, air and water. The Teck Frontier project would have emitted four to six megatons of CO2 every year in its operation. To put that into context for my Conservative colleagues, four megatons of CO2 is equivalent to the emissions that all the light-duty vehicles in British Columbia produce every year. That is every single car, every single small truck and every single personal vehicle. The Teck Frontier mine would have emitted that amount every single year.

The greenhouse gas emissions from the Frontier mine are fundamentally inconsistent with Canada's climate targets and the Paris Agreement commitments. When we are already so far away from achieving our climate commitments, anyone serious about meeting our climate obligations, our obligations to our international commitments and to future generations, could see that this project could not be approved. Nevertheless, the Liberals looked as if they were seriously considering moving forward with the project. The Liberals committed to carbon neutrality by 2050, but this project would have emitted four to six megatons of CO2 every year until 2067. It just shows that the Liberals' words were just more empty words.

The Liberals keep saying they want to balance the economy and the environment, but they are failing at both. They decided to buy a pipeline for $4.4 billion and now want to borrow an additional $12.6 billion to construct the Trans Mountain pipeline, which will increase tanker traffic on the coast, where my constituents and I live, sevenfold and increase our greenhouse gas emissions in the middle of a climate crisis.

The Teck Frontier mine, the proposal that the Liberal government was seriously considering, would have put endangered species in northern Alberta at high risk, would have devastated irreplaceable wilderness, would have had detrimental impacts on treaty rights and would have knocked us even further off track from our climate goals.

Instead of empty promises, pipelines and bad projects, let us invest in long-term sustainable jobs in Alberta and across Canada. Investing in transit, retrofit, green infrastructure and clean energy will not only help us meet our climate targets but can also provide good family-sustaining jobs in a low-carbon economy.

New Democrats proposed a plan that would have created at least 300,000 good jobs in the clean energy future for the next four years, but we have not seen that kind of leadership from the Liberal government. We need to build zero-emission vehicles here at home and we need to make it easier to buy and charge zero-emission vehicles no matter where we go. We need to be not only producing electric vehicles in Canada but also providing incentives targeted to made-in-Canada vehicles only, giving manufacturers a powerful incentive to build. This safeguards good jobs and strengthens our auto sector.

We need to electrify our fleets, making public transit cleaner, more convenient and more affordable. We need to provide training for workers to transition into the low-carbon economy. We need to provide support for workers, for families and for communities so that the changing economy actually works for them. We need to boost clean-tech research and manufacturing with “buy Canadian” procurement. We need to create good family-sustaining jobs by building infrastructure in every region of our country.

We could save families $900 or more a year in home energy costs with energy-efficient upgrades. Making bold investments in energy efficiency not only pays off in terms of reducing emissions but also brings savings on energy bills. It also means good jobs in communities from coast to coast to coast.

We need a government that is committed to supporting workers today, not with imaginary jobs and projects with no business case, but supporting workers while equipping them with the skills and opportunities of the future. It means making sure that Canadian workers have access to meaningful training funds to use when they need them.

I also want to take a moment to mention an incredible organization, Iron & Earth, which is a worker-led initiative. These are oil and gas workers who want to work building renewable energy projects, who organized to support each other and who advocate on their own behalf. They are not only supporting their fellow workers, demonstrating how their skills are transferable and connecting these workers with training, resources and a network they require to position themselves in the new renewable energy industry, but they are also calling on the government to implement a national upskilling initiative, investing in training that would empower oil and gas, coal and indigenous workers to get into the renewable energy economy. These oil and gas workers see the opportunities that could be possible if the government truly took its commitment to workers and the climate seriously, but successive Liberal and Conservative governments have left workers to navigate these shifts on their own.

Workers in Alberta are feeling the impact of job losses, and 19,000 workers lost their jobs just in the last month. The answer to this problem is not projects that are economic and environmental nightmares. The answer is not empty promises of jobs from projects that have no business case. The answer is investing in good family-sustaining jobs all across the country.

We need to fulfill Canada's G20 commitment to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies and we need to redirect these funds to low-carbon initiatives. We also need to reform Export Development Canada's mandate to focus on providing support for Canadian sustainable energy projects rather than the petroleum industry.

We need to truly support workers, industry, research and innovation. These are the kinds of investments that would drive real results, creating hundreds of thousands of good jobs and helping to boost the economy across the country. It would also put Canada on the path to meeting ambitious science-based greenhouse gas reduction targets that we need if we are going to prevent catastrophic climate change from dangerous global warming beyond 1.5° Celsius.

The answer is a plan that creates good jobs to support hard-working families and upholds indigenous rights. The answer is a made-in-Canada green new deal.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, it sounds like we just took a journey to a different planet, listening to the speech from our NDP colleague.

The argument is not viable. It does not make sense. The company tried for seven years or more to get approval for this project. It spent over $1 billion to get to this stage, but the government dragged this process out for so long, for months and months, that it made the project die on the spot. The company lost the money and Alberta lost the jobs.

Providing jobs for Albertans is not by word of mouth. It is a responsibility. Everyone has to be logical and reasonable in talking about it, and not just provide a bunch of rhetoric coming from here and there about how to move to green energy while we depend solely in Alberta on an industry that has been feeding Alberta and Canada forever. How can we provide immediate jobs to Alberta right now if we do not approve projects such as this one?

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, immediate jobs are what they want, yet Teck Frontier mine promised 7,000 construction jobs that may or may not have really appeared because the company said to the joint review panel that its business case was built on $95 a barrel. The CEO then admitted to the company's own investors that anyone with any credibility looking at the price of oil knows that it will never get to $95 a barrel. We are at $51, and projections say it will not go much higher than $60 to maybe, tops, $70.

This project was not going to be built. If you want good jobs now, invest in the low-carbon economy.

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Madam Speaker, with the lack of initiative from the Conservatives, we might actually have to move to a new planet when it comes to climate change.

Through NRCan, we announced the electric vehicle and alternative fuels infrastructure deployment initiative, which was $8 million for 160 EV fast chargers that actually amounted to two stations in my riding. Does the member acknowledge that we are working diligently for a cleaner future?

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will always applaud the small steps that we are taking toward climate action, but when we have a government that spends $4.4 billion on buying a pipeline and then is going to borrow over $12 billion to construct it, it is challenging to see the current government as anything but a climate failure.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I used to live in Victoria. I actually lived three different times in the Victoria riding and I am the former president of the Conservative EDA in that riding, so I know Victoria very well.

I am always amazed at people from all sides of this House who are constantly lecturing about climate change, yet at the same time they are flying or driving here. We looked at the Bloc Québécois from the last Parliament, when there were only 10 of them. They racked up almost half a million kilometres driving to Ottawa every week.

The member comes from Victoria. She probably comes through Vancouver and flies here. She talks about making small steps toward the environment. I wonder if she would consider perhaps walking here as one of her small steps, or perhaps supporting Alberta oil, which has a much lower GHG footprint than the Alaska oil or the California oil that is brought up to Washington state and refined as jet fuel and sent to Vancouver so she can fly to Ottawa.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is one of the things that Conservatives will often fall back on: Why are we using fossil fuels while advocating for climate action? It is one of the problematic aspects when we have a system that is so embedded in fossil fuels infrastructure. We need our government to take leadership. We need our government to invest in innovation, in new technology. We need our government to show the kind of leadership that will address the climate crisis now.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Once again, during the answer there were a lot of points of view being aired when it was not time for people to speak. I ask members to hold their questions and comments until the next time.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is very unfair of you to constantly be pointing out the member for Winnipeg North for that.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am not going to point out anybody at this point because I know most of the people who were doing it are quite seasoned in the House and already know what the rules of the House are.

The hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, at the heart of this debate is one fundamental truth: We need a solution to the economic crisis gripping my province, we need an economy that supports Albertans and we need the UCP and the Liberal government to stop playing politics with the people of my province and get to work.

I am so tired of listening to this blame game in which not one member of Jason Kenney's government or the Prime Minister's Liberal government is actually working with Albertans.

Teck was never the solution to the crisis impacting my province. The Prime Minister knew that, and so does Mr. Kenney. Our energy sector plays an important role in our economy. The Alberta oil and gas sector has, for some time, been the economic engine that drives this country and has driven our province.

I am a fourth-generation Albertan. I am deeply proud of Alberta and our heritage, and I will proudly declare that I come from a long line of hard-working Albertans who have contributed to the oil and gas industry and have built our province and our country. It is for those Albertans that I am speaking this evening.

Our leadership has failed us. Not only have they failed to work with Albertans to diversify our economy and make sure Albertans were well placed for the 21st century, but they have told stories about it. We have been told that oil and gas is coming back like the past. We have been told that there is another boom just around the corner. We have been told that this project or that project will save us.

I am the daughter of an oil and gas worker. I have lived through the boom-and-bust industry in this province, and it not going to be coming back the way we had it before, full story. When the Conservative members of this House fail to acknowledge that, they are not doing justice to people in Alberta.

What we have not been told is there was another path forward. Norway has $905 billion saved up as a result of their energy royalties. We have saved $17 billion in our heritage fund. That is $905 billion to $17 billion. To top it off, Norway started saving in 1990. When did we start saving? It was 1976. I was four.

The Conservatives have given away our wealth. The Liberals have given away our wealth. The government has known for decades about greenhouse gas impacts and it has not done the saving and planning that we needed to do.

What is worse than that is the failure of our leadership to fight the most important crisis of our time, the climate crisis. We need deep investment in Alberta. We need to invest in Albertans. We need to give Albertans the jobs that they earned and deserve. We need to stop lying to them that there will be some sort of a renewal of oil and gas, that is is coming back to $95 a barrel, because it is not.

There are young people who live in my riding who go to the University of Alberta and King's University. These young people are looking to the future and are scared for their future because we are not addressing the climate change crisis and we are also not providing an economic opportunity for my province.

While the Liberals say we are doing enough and the Conservatives say we need to double down, nobody is fighting for Albertans. Nobody is trying to make sure there are jobs in my province for my people.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I keep hearing everyone talk about how oil and gas prices are not going down. Could someone please explain to me why consumption keeps going up? That is my biggest concern.

The next thing that I have to be concerned about is that all these oil and gas projects are being cancelled in Alberta, yet we do not stop having imports of oil and gas from other countries. Then we could deal with climate change for a change. Let us actually all agree to ban all oil and gas imports coming into Canada, so people can stop saying “climate change”.

Will you support me on that? Can—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I remind the member that he is to address the questions and comments to the Chair.

The hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona.