House of Commons Hansard #23 of the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was project.

Topics

Opposition Motion—Proposed Tax ChangesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Conservative

Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON

Madam Speaker, I was very interested in the great speech by the hon. member. However, I wonder if the hon. member would be willing to grant me that when we reduce taxes on businesses, businesses can actually create jobs. Some of those business owners may earn in excess of $90,000, but it is when we invest back into our economy that we allow business owners to create jobs. Is it not also beneficial to reduce taxes on businesses as well?

Opposition Motion—Proposed Tax ChangesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

NDP

Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON

Madam Speaker, this particular Liberal tax cut is not a corporate tax cut. This is an individual tax cut. However, the problem is the same, in that it is something that puts more wealth into the hands of those who are already wealthy.

As I had stipulated, we know that providing social problems on a universal basis actually helps everybody. When we talk about increasing help to individuals who earn $90,000 or less, we are talking about increasing benefits to them by $1,200 a year. I am pretty sure that there are people in his riding who would really appreciate that program.

Opposition Motion—Proposed Tax ChangesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

Bloc

Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC

Madam Speaker, I want to ask my NDP colleague whether she believes, as I do, that health falls under provincial and not federal jurisdiction.

What is more, why is the NDP of 2020 distancing itself from the Sherbrooke declaration, which was made by former NDP leader Jack Layton in 2005? Under that declaration, Quebec would have the right to opt out with full compensation, no strings attached, when a law is passed in an area that falls under Quebec's jurisdiction.

Opposition Motion—Proposed Tax ChangesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

NDP

Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON

Madam Speaker, I always love to talk about the late Hon. Jack Layton. He is a hero of mine, and I know that Jack was one of the fiercest advocates for a full body approach to health care, whether talking about health care, pharmacare or something like dental care. It is what New Democrats have been talking about for a very long time and have been pushing governments to do.

I believe that health care is about both a federal commitment and a provincial commitment, and it does not have to be limited. I certainly believe in the Canada Health Act in terms of what it can achieve across the board universally in that scope.

Opposition Motion—Proposed Tax ChangesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Madam Speaker, I think this is the first time that I have had occasion to direct a question to the hon. member for London—Fanshawe. Knowing both her mother and her father, I would welcome her to the House and say that if I were your mom, I would be busting my buttons.

Sorry: not your mother, Madam Speaker, but the hon. member's mother.

I certainly intend to vote for this motion, as does the Green Party. However, I find some imprecision in the way the motion is worded, and I just would love clarity around it. It says “on such things as dental care”. What are the other things? What would be the actual amount of money that could be set aside by this change in the tax regime?

I would ask the hon. member to enlighten us. Can we really do more than dental care? Why is it “such things as” dental care, just to understand the motion more fully?

Opposition Motion—Proposed Tax ChangesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

NDP

Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's comments. Certainly, she is a proud mother and he is a proud father, and I do them honour, hopefully, by taking my spot in this House and talking about something that they both, as New Democrats, have fought for for a very long time.

In terms of the wording and the specifics, I know that it has been estimated that $1.6 billion could be saved. I believe that with the implementation of this program, around $800 million would be costed, so that anything additional could go to other services and an expansion of that program.

Again, this is about taking care of people head to toe. This is about the full body approach that we need to take to health care to be proactive and to save a lot of money down the road.

Opposition Motion—Proposed Tax ChangesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my NDP colleague for her inspiring speech, and I look forward to hearing my colleagues' questions very shortly.

I would like to begin by proposing that we remember what our role is as representatives of our constituents. I think our primary focus must always be on trying to create a better, fairer, more progressive world where people can live in dignity, reach their full potential, hold meaningful jobs with good working conditions and have a good quality of life that makes life worth living. We always need to keep in mind that we are here to improve the quality of life of our constituents, to create a world with more justice and dignity for all.

We in Canada are fortunate enough to have had a universal public health care system that is accessible to all for many years. It is an invaluable system that many people fought for, including the NDP, but also members of other political parties. Those people fought to have a system where everyone is treated equally when they become ill. When illness strikes, medical treatment is not provided just because an individual has a credit card or a bank account, but because they are a citizen of a country where a collective decision was made to treat people without discriminating on the basis of money, fortune or wealth.

Unfortunately, our universal public health care system was not accompanied by a universal public pharmacare system. We are the only country in the world where this incongruous situation exists. I believe we will have other discussions about pharmacare, which will greatly improve the lives of Canadians and significantly cut costs.

Our universal public health care system is not perfect. The motion presented today by my party would address one of the problems. At some point, the human body began to be viewed as a puzzle, with some parts being insured and others not. If someone has a heart attack, they get in an ambulance and go to the hospital. If they need bypass surgery, it is covered. If they need open heart surgery, they will get it because the heart is covered by health insurance. If they break a leg climbing a tree and need a cast, the leg is covered. However, if there is a problem in a person's mouth, if they have trouble with their teeth, if they have a cavity or need a root canal, well, good luck. That is not covered. They have to get out their chequebook or credit card.

Our system is flawed. The human body has been separated into various parts that are valued differently for insurance purposes. It is pretty odd. Dental care is extremely important to people. Millions of people in Canada cannot or will not have their dental problems looked after because they cannot afford to. About one in five people in Canada avoids going to the dentist because of cost. Does that make sense to anyone? Can we justify that to the people we represent, to our constituents? I do not think so.

During the last election campaign, I talked about this with people at their homes, in parks and in restaurants. They realized right away that it makes no sense that the quality of care we get for some parts of our bodies, like our mouths and teeth, depends on our wealth and good fortune. We value equality, and that is not equal. As a progressive, that is something I will fight.

As parliamentarians, whether we are in the government or in an opposition party, we have to make choices. From the beginning of the 43rd Parliament, the Liberal Party has made a very clear choice by proposing another tax cut that once again favours the wealthy. This is not the first time, either. The Liberals did the same thing in the last Parliament when they proposed a middle-class tax cut that did not give one cent back to people who earn less than $45,000. For the Liberals, people who earn $35,000 or $40,000 a year are not rich enough to be part of the middle class, so they got nothing. This year, the Liberals are proposing another tax cut which, let's face it, is an expenditure. It is money that is no longer going into the government's coffers. We are missing out on a certain amount of revenue, with no guaranteed results to show for it. We are not guaranteed better services for the public or a better quality of life.

This completely irresponsible tax cut is going to cost us nearly $7 billion. The tax cut that the Liberal government is proposing is worth $6.9 billion, and once again, it will benefit the wealthiest Canadians.

The biggest benefits, which will save people $300 a year or more, are limited to those who earn at least $113,000 a year.

The Liberals are saying that this will save the average family $600 a year. Only individuals who earn at least $143,000 will be eligible for that $600 a year, which is the maximum savings provided by this tax cut. The people in our society who are going to save $600 are the ones who earn nearly $150,000.

Personally, I do not see this as a progressive measure. I do not think it will help those who are struggling and those who are the most disadvantaged.

The NDP put forward a proposal that appears in the motion moved today, specifically, that anyone who earns more than $90,000 a year will not get a tax cut. Like everyone else, the first tax brackets will benefit, but above $90,000, there will be no tax cut. This measure will save Canada $1.6 billion.

It is not very complicated after that. The money that was going to the rich would be transferred to a new public dental care program that will cost between $800 million and $850 million a year, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. We save twice as much as we need to give additional coverage to 4 million Canadians, to people in the 338 ridings represented here, to people who are suffering and who cannot afford the care they need.

A society has to choose whether to take care of people or to give handouts to the rich. It is important to look at what we are facing today and think about what choice we have to make to help our constituents as much as possible.

We want public dental care to be accessible to people who earn less than $90,000 a year. Let us keep it simple. People who earn $90,000 or more do not get a tax cut, and people who earn less than $90,000 a year have a new social program that will make a real difference in their lives. The program will improve their health and will probably save our health care system money because it will prevent illnesses that can get worse when someone does not have access to care. We need to keep this in mind to ensure we are making the right decision.

Many years ago, we made the good decision to develop a public, universal health care system. It was such a good decision that candidates like Bernie Sanders are desperately trying to institute this system in the United States, knowing that it would be the right thing to do and a positive social change.

Our proposal would cost less than $1 billion a year and would be funded from an irresponsible tax cut that helps only the wealthiest Canadians.

Some people will say this encroaches on provincial jurisdiction. We have heard that one before. Since I am going to be asked the question anyway, I will remind hon. members that we have the principles of the Canada Health Act, that there are health transfers to the provinces and that there will necessarily be negotiations with the provinces to see whether or not they decide to get on board. Then, it might be worthwhile for Quebec to get $250 million to $350 million to allow Quebeckers most in need to receive dental care.

I think a responsible Quebec government is going to sit at the table, like every other province, and look at what can be done.

The Sherbrooke declaration is indeed still part of the NDP platform, and Quebec's right to full compensation would inevitably be included in legislation. However, what we have before us today is not a bill or a federal-provincial negotiation. It is a motion. It is a direction that parliamentarians are giving to the government to tell it that this is important and that it should move in that direction.

I want to reassure everyone. If this works out, it will not be a federal public servant playing around in people's mouths, it will be a dentist, and that dentist will probably be paid and hired by a clinic or hospital in Quebec, if you are a Quebecker.

Opposition Motion—Proposed Tax ChangesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary 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 critically important to recognize that to optimize any sort of a national dental program, we need provinces and territories on side. I believe that is indisputable. We have to do that in order to optimize the program.

I am not convinced the New Democrats have done their work. Can they provide any feedback to the House in terms of what provinces they have consulted? Do they already have a sense of which provinces would endorse this? Would the member agree we need to work with provinces and territories to have the optimal program? If that is not possible, is the NDP suggesting the national government would go on its own in providing a national program?

Opposition Motion—Proposed Tax ChangesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his interesting question.

I come from the union and labour relations community, where collective agreements and contracts are renegotiated. One thing is certain: in 100% of the cases, we do not know how the negotiations will end before they begin.

Some provinces would dearly like to see an increase in federal health transfers so that they can provide better services to their residents. Statistics Canada showed that over 35% of Canadians and Quebeckers do not have dental insurance, which means that one in three people in Canada do not have easy access to dental care when they need it.

Some provinces may be more reluctant, which is normal. However, I would like to be able to say that this is the direction that we intend to take and the way we want to take care of people in our provinces and here in Canada.

Opposition Motion—Proposed Tax ChangesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

Madam Speaker, indeed one in five Canadians avoids going to see a dentist. That is 6.8 million people across the country who do not really have access to dental services because of costs.

In context, in a riding like Vancouver East, which tends to be a very low-income riding, I have met many constituents who are worried about applying for a job because their teeth are in terrible shape. They have not had dental services their whole lives. Imagine what a program like this would do for people like them. Not only would it help people's health, but it would build their self-esteem and also help them to get into the job market.

To that end, I really do not understand why the Liberals and the Conservatives are resisting this program. It would be paid for if the government adjusted its tax structure so that people who make $90,000 or less receive the tax changes but anybody above that amount would not.

I wonder if the member can further elaborate on the importance of this program.

Opposition Motion—Proposed Tax ChangesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very relevant question.

It is true that having bad teeth is usually the most obvious outward sign that makes it possible to differentiate between social classes. Poor dental health has an impact on every aspect of a person's life. Everyone can understand how that could make it harder for someone to get a job and cause problems in their social and love lives. Let us be frank. In real life, having bad teeth causes problems. People will see the difference and this will create barriers in every aspect of the person's social and socioeconomic life.

Yes, this is a good proposal. We need a tax system that is based on true progressivism to ensure that the wealthiest members of our society are able to help and to pay for the services of those who really need them.

Opposition Motion—Proposed Tax ChangesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Bloc

Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC

Madam Speaker, I am happy to hear from my NDP colleague.

The Bloc Québécois recognizes that health, including dental health, is a major concern for all Quebeckers. This issue has been one of the Bloc Québécois's key demands going way back. Currently, the federal health transfer goes up by 3% per year, but we want it to go up by 6% per year to make up lost ground and bring the federal contribution up to at least 25% of health care costs. Originally, the federal government contributed 50%. We fully agree with that idea.

Still, the problem is that the federal government has to respect provincial jurisdiction to ensure the money will be used efficiently. We must avoid contradictions. My colleague just said that his party might have forgotten to include Quebec's right to opt out with full compensation and no strings attached in its motion. I am pleased to hear that. I would have liked to see that stated explicitly in the NDP motion, but I can understand that it was just an oversight.

That said, the Bloc Québécois cannot vote for a motion like this, for the reasons I just explained. The money needs to be transferred to Quebec with no compensation and no strings attached so that Quebec can decide how to use it.

Dental health is a major concern for us. We share that concern.

Opposition Motion—Proposed Tax ChangesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Madam Speaker, I am glad to hear that the Bloc Québécois supports the general idea. I would have liked their support here in the House, but I understand that we have our differences.

The Conservatives slashed health transfers and the Liberals maintained those cuts, but our parties agree that health transfers need to go up by at least 6%.

Opposition Motion—Proposed Tax ChangesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Liberal

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

Pursuant to an order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the opposition motion are deemed put and the recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Wednesday, February 26, 2020, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

Opposition Motion—Proposed Tax ChangesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House you would find unanimous consent to call it 6:30 p.m. at this time, so we could begin the emergency debate.

Opposition Motion—Proposed Tax ChangesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Liberal

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

Does the member have unanimous consent?

Opposition Motion—Proposed Tax ChangesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Opposition Motion—Proposed Tax ChangesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Liberal

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

[For continuation of proceedings, see part B]

[Continuation of proceedings from part A]

Cancellation of Teck Frontier Mine ProjectEmergency Debate

6:15 p.m.

Liberal

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

The House will now proceed to the consideration of the motion to adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the Teck Frontier mine project.

Cancellation of Teck Frontier Mine ProjectEmergency Debate

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB

moved:

That this House do now adjourn.

She said: Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

I rise tonight to address a national economic emergency, the cancellation of the $20-billion Teck Frontier oil sands opportunity, even though the expert joint panel recommended it in the national public interest seven months ago. The cancellation of Teck Frontier will cost Alberta alone 10,000 badly needed jobs and will cost all 14 local and supportive indigenous communities their long sought-after agreements with financial, education and skills training opportunities. It will eliminate the potential for $70 billion in revenue to all three levels of government for services and programs for all Canadians.

People may think oil and gas is isolated to Alberta and Saskatchewan, but the energy sector as a whole is the largest single private sector investor in the entire Canadian economy. B.C., Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Atlantic Canada and all of the territories have onshore and offshore oil and gas resources, some stranded and some not, with related industries at various degrees.

Canada should be proud to be home to the third largest oil reserves in the world. Canadians should also know the reality that 97.3% of it is in the oil sands, so Canada's oil future is dependent on the future of the oil sands. Every one oil sands job creates five jobs in other sectors in other provinces.

Ontario, Quebec and B.C. companies are the biggest suppliers to the oil sands. In 2017, oil sands companies, even after all the losses, spent $1.9 billion on goods and services from over 1,100 Ontario companies. Here is the alarming part. That was a 45% drop from what was spent in Ontario in 2014, before the Liberals were elected and launched their plan to “phase out the oil sands”, in the Prime Minister's words. In 2014, nine of every 10 full-time jobs created in Canada were made in Alberta, offering opportunities to everyone across the country and the world, driven by a thriving energy sector. I think most Ontarians would be surprised to learn that the contribution from oil and gas businesses to Ontario's economy is more than half of the contribution of the automotive industry. Over the next 10 years, oil and gas could generate $12 billion in tax revenues for programs and services Ontarians value.

The livelihoods of many Quebeckers also depend on the oil sands, where approximately 400 companies are direct suppliers to the industry in Alberta. The federal tax revenue generated from the incomes of those multi-generational Albertans and Albertans by choice working in the province's energy sector is shared right across the whole country. As my Atlantic Canadian family members and friends remind me, a rising tide lifts all boats.

In 2018, Canada's oil and gas sector still contributed seven times that of the auto manufacturing sector and 15 times that of the aerospace sector to Canada's GDP, even after the colossal drop in investment and activity. No Albertan and no Conservative wants to stand in the way of any other Canadian province, territory or industry. We want all to thrive. However, the attacks by the Liberals on oil and gas, their anti-resource, anti-business bill, Bill C-69, their oil shipping ban bill, Bill C-48, the drilling ban, the development prohibitions, the Liberal fuel standard, layers of new taxes, red tape, and ongoing and escalating uncertainty, are actually all attacks on all of Canada's economy.

Nearly $200 billion in oil and gas projects have been cancelled or stalled, and 200,000 Canadian oil and gas workers have lost their jobs since 2015, a flight of capital that is the biggest loss of energy investment and jobs in any comparable time frame in more than seven decades. Teck's cancellation is the 11th major multi-billion dollar mega oil and gas project to be withdrawn, and the latest in the list of 18 companies that have cancelled or frozen their Canadian energy assets in the same time frame. To put it in context, these numbers are equivalent to Canada having lost both the entire automotive and aerospace sectors combined in Canada. That would rightfully be considered a national economic catastrophe and a severe crisis by every member of every party in this House of Commons, and it has been going on in Alberta for years.

Canadian-founded juggernauts like Encana and TransCanada are removing “Canada” from their name and moving out of Canada. Drilling companies like Akita, Trinidad, Ensign, Savanna, Citadel and Precision Drilling have all moved their drilling rigs, their expertise and their world-class skills to the United States.

Let me make clear the disproportionate impact of the attacks on the oil sands by the Liberal government on Alberta.

As of 2018, capital investment in the sector fell by half, more than in the last seven decades, and the oil sands development in particular has experienced an even sharper drop in investment of almost 70%.

Whereas most provinces showed a decrease in people on EI as of January 2019, Alberta saw a major increase.

Business bankruptcies in Alberta were up 28% between August 2017 and August 2018. Business insolvencies in Alberta have skyrocketed by more than 70% from their 2015 lows, compared to a 13.5% decrease on average for the country as a whole over the same time period. Real estate vacancies and food bank use are both at record highs.

Albertans wonder why oil and gas job losses and all the related social consequences, such as suicides, family breakdowns and crime, do not seem to be occupying the permanent attention of national media and commentators. The cancellation of Teck just adds to an already existing pattern of crisis and it has been escalating since 2015.

As recently as February 2019, Devon Energy announced it hired advisers to help sell off its oil sands assets and later sold its Canadian operations to CNRL. The CEO said the sale was part of the company's “transformation to a U.S. oil growth business”. Month after month it was the same in 2019.

Imperial Oil says it is slowing down the development of the $2.6-billion Aspen oil sands project due to market uncertainty and competitiveness barriers.

Trident Exploration said it would cease operations. It left 94 people without work and a large number of oil and gas assets with no owner, including over 3,000 wells, 240 facilities and 500 pipelines.

Later, Husky Energy cut 370 jobs after announcing it would cut capital spending by 10%.

Perpetual Energy then announced it had cut 25% of its workforce.

Here is the deal: Albertans cannot see a light at the end of the tunnel. The cancellation of Teck Frontier represents a growing crisis of investor confidence overall in the fairness, predictability, independence and certainty of Canada's regulatory system, policy framework and the economy overall.

Teck invested $1 billion over nine years while meeting every requirement during a multi-jurisdictional rigorous review and was approved. In the months since Liberals moved the goalposts, the environment minister said the political approval depended on Teck's capacity to be net zero by 2050. Teck took that unprecedented step of self-imposing that exact goal far beyond the already world-leading standards of Canada and the industry average, not a regulatory requirement and found nowhere in federal law. Teck also committed to recycling 90% of the water used in processing and generating half the emissions of the oil sands industry average.

The Alberta government even agreed to adopt a 100-megatonne oil sands emissions cap to remove all the Liberals' excuses 48 hours before Teck's decision to cancel Frontier over public safety concerns, political risk and policy uncertainty in Canada became public. Teck's other assets are in unstable South American countries.

We all know the truth here. In the last couple of weeks, Liberal cabinet ministers hinted publicly that they might delay past the February 27 deadline and that they were considering any and all information, presumably new or different from the evidence, science, technical, environmental and economic merits that actual experts already evaluated. Liberal MPs spoke out and promoted petitions and admitted most of the caucus was against it.

Is it really any wonder why the whole world is looking at Canada and wondering whether any major resource project can be proposed or actually built here ever again?

Make no mistake, Canada's oil and gas is produced with the highest environmental and social standards in the world, literally second to none with an environmental performance index of 25, compared to places like Nigeria with an EPI of 100 or Saudi Arabia with an EPI of 86. This is what is so crazy about what the Liberals are doing.

Canadian oil sands producers lead the way. They have reduced emissions per barrel by 32% since 1990 compared to resources of similar kind around the world. They are the biggest private sector Canadian investors in clean tech in Canada and world leaders in R&D and innovation. Canadian energy and the oil sands can be the future, not the sunset, and it should be for Canada and for the world.

A painful truth is that this loss also represents an escalating national unity crisis. Western Canadians see political double standards for oil and gas, exemptions and blind eyes turned to projects, industries, exports in other provinces and foreign oil imports.

A strong Alberta means a strong Canada. It should be unthinkable for a sitting Prime Minister to attack the lifeblood and the primary industries of any Canadian province. Can we imagine a Prime Minister saying he was going to stand up to big auto in Ontario or big manufacturing in Quebec? Canadians would be rightfully outraged and so would Conservatives. It seems like in this House of Commons, it is only Conservatives who would be outraged at divisive political attacks on the lifeblood and industries of particular provinces and regions in our country.

The Liberal Prime Minister decided his political gains were more important than the unity of our nation. Their electoral result was as expected and all the Prime Minister did was give his empty words and here we are in a national and economic crisis today.

Cancellation of Teck Frontier Mine ProjectEmergency Debate

February 25th, 2020 / 6:25 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's remarks, but I am worried that this debate is going to fan the flames of rhetoric on both sides.

As a member of Parliament on this Teck Frontier issue, I supported this and approved the proposal. In terms of supporting it, I also realize that there are already 20 oil sands projects in the mill with approval. This one probably will not come into being unless things really change within the next 10 years. The problem we see on that side, and on this to a certain extent, is the way it is viewed out there in Alberta.

I have a lot of Alberta friends. I spend a lot of time there. A lot of people from the Maritimes worked in the oil industry and still do. In fact 25 flights out of Moncton a week used to go to Alberta and they are not now.

Trying to blame everything on the Prime Minister is not the answer. Does the member really think that the price of oil in the market had nothing to do with this decision? It requires $92 a barrel of oil for it to be successful. Oil is nowhere near there and looks like it is not going to get there.

Let us have some real facts on the table here. The Teck company made the decision themselves and the price of oil is—

Cancellation of Teck Frontier Mine ProjectEmergency Debate

6:25 p.m.

Liberal

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

The hon. member for Lakeland.

Cancellation of Teck Frontier Mine ProjectEmergency Debate

6:25 p.m.

Conservative

Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB

Madam Speaker, let me say this to my dear friend. As a first-generation, born-and-raised Albertan with a deceased mother from Newfoundland and a father from Nova Scotia, let me tell him that I know very well both what the energy sector in Alberta has contributed to the country, but also how hard it is on families and on communities when they have to go other places to find work.

Atlantic Canadians, Albertans and people all around the country and all around the world have built our province and built our industry together. Conservatives will not let the divisive Prime Minister take it down.

Now I take this personally because I started part of my public policy career in the oil sands business unit in the department of energy. I was part of the effort to get the world to recognize the oil sands as a recoverable resource, as recently as 2006, with existing technologies. At that time it was high risk, capital intensive and the entire world said that it could not be done. Do colleagues know who did say it could be done? It was Albertans and Albertans by choice. We are proud of that contribution, but does this member—

Cancellation of Teck Frontier Mine ProjectEmergency Debate

6:30 p.m.

Liberal

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

Do you have more questions?