Debates of Feb. 25th, 2020

Teck Frontier Mine Project

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague suggested several times that the current situation has absolutely nothing to do with the environment, which may raise some eyebrows.

In his speech, he mentioned several times that people may not believe him. I will use the same formula to show him that the current situation has everything to do with the environment.

If people do not believe me, members should consider the fact that a mining project like the Teck Frontier project would produce four million tonnes of CO₂ per year and 260,000 barrels per day. If people do not believe me, then I will read a quote from Don Lindsay, who wrote:

...global capital markets are changing rapidly and investors and customers are increasingly looking for jurisdictions to have a framework in place that reconciles resource development and climate change, in order to produce the cleanest possible products. This does not yet exist here today....

If my colleague does not believe me, I can give him the paper.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois supports foreign oil. The Bloc is happy to see that nearly half of Quebec's oil comes from foreign sources.

The reality is that the Bloc is in favour of oil, but it would rather send Quebeckers' money abroad and finance dictatorships and less environmentally friendly energy sources than the ones in Canada. Canadians produce the cleanest oil in the world.

That is the Bloc's reality, and we will never let them tell Canadians otherwise.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would once again remind members to respect those who have the floor. If members have comments, they need to ask to participate in the question and comment period or in the debate.

The hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Madam Speaker, earlier tonight we heard a Liberal member of Parliament tell this chamber that the government's goal in Canada is to produce the cleanest oil in the world. However, this is not true. We know what the Prime Minister told Canadians some years ago: The goal is actually to “phase out” the industry.

I can say this with some certainty because Canada is already an environmental leader when it comes to refining and producing its petroleum products. It is one of the cleanest producers in the world. If that is the goal, the government could say it is mission accomplished. It could get on with creating jobs and opportunity in Canada and exporting this technology and our clean ethical products around the world.

We know the decision that came down from Teck is a result of a market failure, which is produced by policy uncertainty. The result is fewer jobs, higher energy prices and less of Canada's ethical oil being consumed at home and around the world.

Teck's decision is a blow to Canada. It is devastating to Alberta's economy. It is also problematic and hurtful and is raising questions in Alberta about its place in Confederation in Canada. Jobs have been lost, opportunities have left, tax dollars are evaporating, and we now hear voices in western Canada wondering what Alberta's place is in the federation. This is a realistic question we hear, as people who look to Ottawa see a government trying to turn off this industry.

This is not the first time we have seen these actions from a federal government that is focused elsewhere. In my home province, energy east was killed. The government tried to say this too was a market decision, but energy east was following all the rules that were laid out by the Government of Canada. Those rules were changed midstream, something we never see. The company engaged in good faith in the Canadian regulatory process. It spent $1 billion trying to go through that process. Then the government changed the rules. The Prime Minister was not willing to spend a nickel of his political capital in Quebec, so the company walked away. It was another lost opportunity for Canada, an opportunity to bring the real eastern Canada, Atlantic Canada, into this nation building.

We look west and to central Canada and see jobs, growth and opportunity. We say in New Brunswick that we would like a piece of that. Instead of sending our best and brightest to work in this industry, this vital Canadian industry, we would like to see a piece of that in Atlantic Canada. However, the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party have other ideas. They want to shut it down. They wanted to shut it down in the east and now want to shut it down in western Canada.

Tonight I had the good fortune of hosting Preston Manning here on the Hill. Mr. Manning was in town promoting his new book about political involvement and engagement, entitled Do Something! I have known Preston Manning for 25 years now. When he sat in the House, his mantra was “the west wants in”. Thirty years ago he was championing western Canadians to come to Ottawa, roll up their sleeves and work with fellow Canadians.

Teck abandoned its project, not because of the market but because of policy failure and policy uncertainty, just like TransCanada did on energy east, just like Kinder Morgan did by bailing out of the Trans Mountain pipeline, which was purchased by the federal government, because things were falling apart so quickly, because of policy and regulatory uncertainty. Today what do we hear in western Canada? Not that the west wants in, but maybe, just maybe, that the west wants out. This is deeply concerning and should raise alarm bells at the highest level of the federal government. We do not want to see this happening.

Our country is strong because of western Canada. It is strong because of all parts of this country. If we have a region or province that feels shut out of the corridors of power and feels its concerns are being ignored, this is a problem, almost a crisis. I hope the government will reconsider its position.

Some say this decision by Teck was made because of a downturn in prices or they say that Teck is just hitting the pause button and will return. Some are even saying that in a way Alberta deserves this because it is not saving enough of its resource. However, there is no downturn in the industry. It is a made-in-Canada problem, a made-in-Canada downturn.

One only needs to look at the United States of America. It is booming. It is being called a blue-collar jobs boom. Jobs are being created, wealth is being created and opportunities are being created. At the same time, America last year, under President Donald Trump, believe or not, was the world's largest net CO2 reducer in the world. America has figured out that one can be prosperous, can cut CO2 and can create jobs.

To the idea that Teck will return, Teck is not going to return as long as the current government is in office under these policies. In fact, dare I say this is probably the last large-scale project we are going to see come to our shores. Why would a company come here? Project after project after project has been either cancelled, abandoned or killed by the government.

As for the notion that Alberta deserves this because it is just not saving enough compared to some European countries, those countries are not part of grand federations. Alberta has shared its wealth. It has shared the wealth with this federal government and it shares its wealth every single year with provinces across this country.

My province of New Brunswick receives a third of its budget every year from transfers from the federal government, generous transfers I know Albertans and other western Canadians are proud to pitch in to help. In the past, they have been allowed to do what they do best, which is to create jobs and opportunity and to share that wealth. They have grown mightily and we have seen a population boom in western Canada.

To my western friends, when the Liberals come to them and say not to worry and they will help with more transfers and EI, I say to run to the hills. We have that in Atlantic Canada. Life is pretty good, but that is not how one creates a growing economy that is going to see families grow, people move in and economies prosper. We are fortunate and thankful to have those transfers, but that is not the road a country follows to grow itself.

Today Canada is poorer because of this decision that is a direct result of the federal government. Indigenous communities that had agreed to it and were looking to participate are poorer. The provinces are going to be poorer over the long run as well. The government is destroying reliable energy, affordable energy and Canada's ethical energy industry. For that I say shame, because increasingly we are finding energy is cheaper outside of this country than good old made-in-Canada energy, and I decry that.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. In today's debate on the Teck Frontier project, it is easy to engage in petty politics against the government.

I do not think my colleague across the way has read the Teck decision, because it clearly explains why the decision was made. Macleans, La Presse, CBC/Radio-Canada and La Presse+ all agree that the decision was not down to our government. One media outlet concluded that it was not opposition from environmentalists, nor hesitation on the federal government's part, that forced Teck Resources to cancel its oil sands megaproject. It was actually the price of oil.

Can my colleague opposite tell us why journalists and Teck Resources all said this week that it was a business decision, not a government decision?

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Madam Speaker, we heard the same arguments when the the energy east pipeline was cancelled. We were told it was a market-related decision. Clearly, the federal government is responsible for this decision in Alberta, just as it was responsible for the energy east decision. The Liberals did nothing. They created obstacles and then said it was not their fault. It is their fault.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member talked a bit about Alberta's place in our Confederation. I really question whether this is a smart move to be talking about separation being best for Alberta and best for Canada.

I am a proud Albertan and I am a proud Canadian but there is this very dog-whistle sort of thing going on, where we are talking about Albertans leaving if we do not get our way. That is not helping us.

We could clearly see that the Teck project was not going forward and that there were reasons why that happened. The company wrote a letter and all of us have read it. What we are doing here is debating a symbol. We are not debating solutions. We are not getting to solutions. Talking about divisiveness in our country is not helping.

Could the member please reassure me that that is not what he meant?

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Madam Speaker, I decry where we find ourselves. I am worried about it because I think it is going to be the issue we will be dealing with between now and the next federal election.

We do not have to make things up or be mischievous to realize that Albertans might soon realize the only way they can move forward to get these projects done or to ship their product outside the country is not with a federal government like the one we have. The conclusions they draw after that will be difficult ones.

I have spent part of my career looking at politics in this country. Albertans are not stupid. They will see where this problem originates from and try to find solutions. I hope and trust they will do so within the country. I understand how the winds of change might blow and people will propose dramatic actions that I do not agree with, that this side of the House does not agree with, but that are being fuelled by the Government of Canada unfortunately.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I would like to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague, the wonderful member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook. I know he will have a lot to say very soon.

I want to thank the member for Lakeland for initiating this emergency debate. I know she is passionate about this issue and has asked a lot of questions about it. She is only doing what all of us in this House would do when representing our constituents, and I salute her for that.

I understand that she is disappointed by the decision of Teck Resources to withdraw its application for the Frontier mine project, but proponents make business decisions every day and we may not always like them. In this case, Frontier had the potential to create good-paying jobs during construction and would have created new wealth and opportunities across the country. It would have generated new revenues for all levels of government. Perhaps, most importantly it carried the support of all 14 surrounding first nations communities. That was no small accomplishment, particularly in this challenging time when we must find innovative ways to balance economic growth, environmental protection and indigenous participation.

Indeed, even as Teck Resources acknowledged that it made a difficult decision based on its economic and operational interests, the company's CEO, Don Lindsay, also identified the larger issue at play. He wrote that Frontier:

...surfaced a broader debate over climate change and Canada’s role in addressing it. It is our hope that withdrawing from the process will allow Canadians to shift to a larger and more positive discussion about the path forward.

Teck Resources is right. We need to continue to have a positive discussion, to search for common ground and move ahead as a country, which is also why now is not the time for taking sides, drawing lines or fanning divisions. That has never served Canadians well in the building of our country and it is not helpful now. Instead, we need to engage in constructive dialogue here in this House and across the country, because we are at a pivotal moment in our history, grappling with national issues that are not easy. On the one hand, the federal government has a core responsibility to ensure Canada can develop its abundant natural resources, get them to market and support good, middle-class jobs. That is why major infrastructure projects like new pipelines to tidewater are essential. They create access to new markets and better prices for valuable Canadian resources. On the other hand, we also know that responsible resource development is only possible when we earn public trust by addressing local, environmental and indigenous peoples' concerns. Our government is committed to meeting this dual challenge.

We passed legislation last year that specifically puts in place new rules to better protect our environment and communities, while making sure good projects are built to create good jobs for the middle class. There are literally hundreds of major resource projects worth hundreds of billions of dollars either under way or planned across Canada over the next decade. Dozens are in the oil sands and all would help to make Canada a global supplier of choice for the materials and finished projects that will drive a low-carbon future.

Canada's petroleum sector is part of that. It is a key contributor to employment and economic growth. It enriches communities in Alberta and across Canada. According to some of our most recent data, the oil and gas sector currently contributes about 8% to the national GDP and employs upward of 564,000 Canadians in direct and indirect jobs across the country, including indigenous communities. It is also an important partner in our climate change effort and our commitment to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. That is worth emphasizing, because there is a persistent myth that petroleum-producing countries like Canada cannot be serious about climate change. I understand why that might be. There are some petro-states with dubious records on climate change, but Canada is not one of them. In fact, it is just the opposite. We are one of 77 countries to commit to net-zero emissions by 2050 and we intend to do it, just as we are doubling down to exceed our 2030 climate targets by putting a price on pollution, phasing out coal-powered electricity and making generational investments in clean energy, new technologies and green infrastructure, because many of the breakthroughs that will get us to where we want to go have yet to be invented or need a little help getting to market.

That is why we announced the winners of our breakthrough clean energy solution initiative earlier this month as part of our efforts to bring the public and private sectors together to invest in potentially game-changing new technologies.

Canada's petroleum industry has been part of this energy transformation. For example, over the past decade Canada's petroleum sector has accounted for almost 70% of all private sector spending on R and D in energy innovation across the country. This includes the oil sands top 13 producers, which have been pooling their resources to fund more than a thousand distinct innovations and technologies.

Federal scientists in Devon have been working with industry on these advancements, and our government is investing $100 million to support the industry-led clean resource innovation network, which is aimed at making Canada's petroleum sector the cleanest in the world. I know we can get there. We are doing all of this because every climate change model suggests that we can meet our global targets while having cleaner oil and gas powering much of the world.

How is this possible? There are two points. First, fossil fuels currently account for just under 80% of the energy used around the globe. Second, even under scenarios in which we keep the planet from warming more than 1.5°, fossil fuels still account for 58% of our energy and oil production is still around 65 million barrels a day.

We can and should do even better than that. We should aim for less than a 1.5° rise, but my point is that fossil fuels will remain an important source of energy for a long time. Why should the best-in-class oil not come from Canada, from Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland and Labrador?

Let me be clear. That does not mean that we can carry on with business as usual. We cannot. Major changes are needed now. That is why we have a vision based on four pillars to make Canada a global leader in the clean energy future.

The first is to enhance energy efficiency, because the best sources of energy are the ones we do not use. In fact, according to Efficiency Canada, conserving energy could take us 25% of the way to our Paris goals.

The second is to be using more clean power, particularly in energy-intensive sectors such as transportation and heating, as well as mining and petroleum extraction, so that we have the world's cleanest mills, mines and factories.

The third is to expand our use of low-carbon fuels, as many indigenous communities are doing by using biomass from forests as a source of both power and jobs.

The fourth pillar is producing the world's cleanest petroleum.

All of these are global game-changers that will help accelerate a generational energy transformation. Canada can lead the way through the wealth of its land and the wisdom of its people. That is our vision. That is what our government is doing.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, Teck came to the same conclusion that we did: The project had a bad business case and it had an even worse environmental plan. That is the reality of this situation.

We are debating this issue tonight, but I would prefer that we talk about how we can move forward and come up with a real plan for workers and for communities affected by the ongoing global economic transition by investing in public infrastructure and clean energy and coming up with a new deal for Canadians, building a future that is more sustainable. Right now, Canada is producing 1.7% of global emissions, yet we are only 0.48% of the global population.

Will the member finally give up on another bad idea, the TMX pipeline? It is way over budget, and we could invest that money into clean energy and doing the right thing for those workers and communities. We can move them forward into a low-carbon future. This is an opportunity for this member to join us in doing the right thing.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is right that governments do not dictate oil sand projects. Market conditions do. The fact is that there are already 20 oil sands projects approved, and the government is out of the way. The 20 oil sands projects are not moving forward because of one reason: the price of a barrel of oil.

I know my hon. colleague would like us to abandon the TMX project, but abandoning the TMX project is the same thing as abandoning the transition toward a clean economy. That is exactly what the TMX project is all about. It is about investing $500 million per year in clean tech.

We will not give up on Alberta energy sector workers and we will not give up on the clean energy workers.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, several members now have said that Teck made a business decision not to proceed. Obviously we are blaming the government for this unfortunate decision and the 10,000 jobs that are lost.

In paragraph 2, the CEO says in reference to this project, “it is commercially viable.”

Lots of members on the other side have said it is a 40-year time window. Production of oil and demand for that oil will peak in 2036, well within the lifespan of this project.

Has the member actually read this letter? Does the member understand what “commercially viable” means?

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am looking at 20 projects that are currently approved that will not produce 10,000 barrels of oil per day, not 100,000 barrels a day, not one million—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Could we hear each other speak, please?

The hon. member.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a lot of good things to say for Albertans. We approved 2.7 million barrels per day of projects, and they are not moving forward, not because of government, but because of market conditions. The market conditions dictate whether or not projects will go forward. Unfortunately, the Government of Canada does not control the price of oil.

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

Madam Speaker, the member talked a lot about the price of oil. If we look at some oil-producing countries overseas, we see that low oil prices offered more of a long-term benefit than giving up the market share. There are countries, for example, like Saudi Arabia, which has the largest oil reserves, and it is able to have low oil prices without harming the economy. It is very hard for Canada to compete when the oil prices are that low.

I want the hon. member to mention Teck Frontier and why it made its decisions when other countries like Saudi Arabia are reducing their cost of oil.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is right. The Government of Canada does not control the world prices for oil. Right now I believe it is at $49 per barrel. That was the last time I checked. I know some countries can produce a barrel of oil for $10 per day. In Alberta, that is not the cost per barrel. It is much more than the prices currently reflected on the stock market.

Again I will repeat that there are 20 projects that have been approved in Canada, representing a capacity of 2.7 million barrels per day, and they are not moving forward because of the current world market prices.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, our government firmly believes that the environment and the economy go hand in hand. We are committed to a federal assessment regime that is robust, based on science, protects our rich natural environment, respects the rights of indigenous peoples and supports our natural resources sector. We know that efficient, credible assessment processes are essential to encouraging investment in Canada and maintaining economic competitiveness.

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

The Frontier oil sands mine project underwent a rigorous environmental assessment that took into account scientific evidence and indigenous knowledge, and was informed by federal experts and extensive consultation and input from indigenous peoples and the public. The environmental assessment of this project was conducted by an independent joint review panel, an excellent example of how the federal government can work co-operatively with other jurisdictions.

Under the federal legislation, a final decision on the project was required by February 28, 2020. As we all know, Teck publicly indicated its decision to discontinue the project on February 23, 2020. While Teck has indicated that it no longer intends to move forward with the proposed Frontier oil sands mine, the Government of Canada is committed to working with the resource sector to make sure that the best projects get built so that we can create jobs and ensure clean, sustainable growth.

The opposition wants to focus on the discontinued Teck Frontier mining project, but let us not forget something very important: that we have hundreds of major resource projects worth $635 billion already under construction or planned across Canada over the next 10 years. Let us move on.

We know that efficient, credible decision-making and assessment processes are essential to attracting investment and maintaining Canada's economic competitiveness.

Better rules give companies and investors the certainty and clarity they need and ensure good projects can move forward in a timely way. To support Canada's competitiveness and to attract investment, the new impact assessment system provides clear expectations and shorter and strictly managed timelines, while aiming at avoiding duplication in other jurisdictions wherever possible with one project, one assessment. These new rules aim to ensure public confidence by making federal decisions about projects like mines, pipelines and hydro dams more transparent and by ensuring decisions are guided by science, indigenous knowledge and other evidence.

We also realize that climate change is the greatest challenge of our time. Not everyone in the House does, but we on this side, of course, do. Also, the environment and the economy must go hand in hand to be successful in moving forward. The science is clear: Human activity is driving unprecedented changes in the earth's climate, and the impacts on the environment and on human health and well-being are real. Canadians are feeling the impacts of the changing climate.

Climate change is a huge challenge, but the opportunities are even greater. Again, we need to move on. Taking strong action can protect the health of Canadians, support biodiversity and create opportunities for Canadian businesses and jobs in the clean-growth economy.

Since the 2015 election, the federal government has been helping Canadians to seize on these opportunities. We worked with the provinces and territories to develop an ambitious plan to fight climate change, increase resilience to the impacts of the changing climate and drive clean economic growth. Today, our climate plan and actions are setting us on a path for more success as we move forward.

We are seeing a decline in absolute emissions while our economy and population continue to grow. Canada's most recent projections estimate that our emissions in 2030 will be 227 megatonnes lower than what was projected prior to the introduction of the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change. This is a historic level of emissions reductions.

How are we getting there? We are supporting climate actions that are practical, proven and affordable while creating good, middle-class jobs. We are doing it in a way that puts people at the centre of our policies. Our plan includes over 50 concrete measures, regulations, standards, programs and investments to reduce emissions, build resilience and grow the economy. It is a plan that will continue to grow as we introduce additional new and enhanced measures that will enable Canada to exceed our 2030 emissions targets, providing a foundation for net-zero.

There are also economic considerations. We know creating good jobs and economic growth for our communities across Canada is an essential part of our environmental protection. We understand the economic importance of the oil and gas sector, and the opportunity it presents for hard-working Canadians.

We also recognize that transition takes time. We cannot do it overnight. We must be realistic. We must work together to move forward. The government understands that Canadians want to know that they can count on the government to make sound decisions to ensure that economically beneficial and environmentally responsible projects are moving forward.

We will continue to engage local communities, indigenous groups and Canadians in the review process for major projects, and we are committed to making decisions that reflect the views of Canadians and the mandate that we have been given.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is a great speech. I think I have heard that speech in so many other debates in the House. It is a canned speech. I really appreciate hearing it again, at least the last two-thirds of it. It did not sink in the first 100 times I heard it in the House.

However, I will concentrate on what this debate is about, which is the Teck Frontier mine. I know the hon. member mentioned it a little at the front of his speech. I will address some of the things he said about it with respect to its viability. He drifted off into all things about climate change.

I am going to ask the member about the 10-year process, the $1 billion spent by Teck in getting to this stage, and the joint provincial-federal body that looked at this assessment said, “Yes, you pass all the benchmarks on this, plus you're involving all 14 indigenous bands and they have all signed off on it.”

The company met all the social and environmental guidelines required of any development in Canada. Therefore, I would like to know what the quid pro quo was for Teck to back away in the last five days. Teck is a mining company. Can we talk about the commitment from the government that it will not be getting $1 billion back from some rebate on its carbon tax going forward? If the member could commit to that, I would like to hear it.

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

Madam Speaker, I have to say that I have only praise for Teck Resources. I feel it has done its work and it has decided, after doing all its analysis, that it was not feasible at this time.

The message Teck sent is much stronger than that. The message it sent is to all Canadians. It is that we have to work together for climate change. It is taking it seriously, and it understands.

A little while back a member opposite said that Teck had decided that it was still feasible. That is not the truth. Let us look at paragraph two. It says:

Since the original application in 2011 we have, as others in the industry have done, continued to optimize the project to further confirm it is commercially viable.

As it is today, it is not feasible and that is why Teck walked away. Please, do not forget that the message is clear—

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

We will have another question.

The hon. member for Repentigny.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to respond to the first speech my colleague opposite gave.

Most people agree that we need to end our dependence on fossil fuels as soon as possible. I heard him say that we need to protect health, biodiversity and water. Essentially, we need to protect humans. Rather than invest money in trying to extract clean oil, which I doubt exists, should we not be investing in a just transition for workers, which would also help make Alberta's economy viable and much more diversified?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

Our government invested heavily in green energy in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019, and it continues to do so. As we work on this, we have to remember that the economy and the environment go hand in hand. We can take care of both, but there has to be a transition, and everyone has to work toward that.

We cannot be like the Conservatives. We could search through the Hansard and print out everything they said about the climate, about how it does not exist. They could give that to their grandchildren later on. It might help them understand.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, we are hearing how proud the Liberals are. The member, whom I deeply respect, said that they have $635 billion that they have created in projects. The member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell said that they have 2.7 million barrels that they have approved in projects that are stuck in the ground because of market conditions. They are fighting with Conservatives over who creates more pipelines and who gives more access to oil. However, none of it is getting to market, and we know why. It is because it does not make sense right now. The price is not there. It is the same reason why Teck has bailed from this project. It is because there is no economic case for it.

I would urge the member to do the right thing and finally release the human capital, the political capital, the social capital for the youth in our country so that we can get on to clean energy and start investing in things that we are going to move forward that are actually going to make a difference for the future of the country and that we could actually maybe all agree on.