Debates of Jan. 25th, 2021

Keystone XL Pipeline

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that the Liberal government always compares itself with the worst student in the class rather than with countries that are doing far better. It is very easy for the member to compare us with the United States, which has had terrible results with the spread of COVID. I would rather that Canada strive to be the best. It is also why we are down in the twenties in terms of vaccinations per capita.

The government always seems to want to compare itself with the worst. The Conservatives will always strive to make sure that Canada is compared with and exceeding the best, because that should be the approach we take to everything.

While we have worked with the government to mitigate the unemployment caused by this crisis, the largest part of our high unemployment rate was caused by a slow and confused wage subsidy that we told the government was insufficient the moment it was announced.

On Keystone XL, the Prime Minister has mailed it in twice on this project and killing thousands of jobs in our country at a time when every job is critical to securing our future.

We need to stop dividing Canadians based on where they live or what industry they work in. We need to pull together, get this country back on its feet, dust it off, get pipelines built and get the country moving. It is about time the member started speaking up and telling his Prime Minister to stop dividing Canadians based on where they live or work.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois stands in solidarity with Alberta's communities, workers and families who are now paying the price for the Alberta premier's decision to ignore the obvious risks of the Keystone XL project and invest $1.5 billion of Albertan taxpayers' money in the project.

Does the Leader of the Opposition not think it would be better, especially during a pandemic, to support Alberta in its economic recovery by providing resources and public investments? Would some more strategic, environmentally friendly, sustainable projects not help Alberta get back on its feet? Is this not a good opportunity to provide support and financial assistance to help Alberta, Albertan workers and Albertan families move towards an essential energy transition?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois needs to respect the opportunities that the natural resources sector offers indigenous peoples across the country, including opportunities for economic reconciliation. Five first nations are partners in the Keystone XL project, which is an example of reconciliation for the first nations. I am proud of this fact, and it is very important in Quebec, in the north and in the west.

I am also proud of our natural resources, the mines in Abitibi, the energy sector in the west, as well as the softwood lumber industry in Quebec and in the west. We have the strictest environmental standards in the world, and we are committed to the first nations. We are the only party that supports an economic recovery that benefits all Canadians, and that is why we are the only party ready to govern.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful on behalf of all people in the western Canadian resource industry, my constituents and all Canadians of good faith who still believe that this House is a place where debates on this country's most important matters should be held openly. I am also honoured to be here speaking among a handful of my colleagues tonight while representing the deep desire of so many of our colleagues across Canada who wanted to speak this evening to this gut-wrenching decision. We need to address here the rationale, the repercussions and the remedial options as a country going forward.

Keystone XL, until last week, was a pipeline that has been in the works for over 12 years, a pipeline that would have connected one of Canada's great and valuable world-class resources directly with the market that needs this specific resource more than anything else, a pipeline that, like all infrastructure, got better in design with time. The version being built now is designed to be carbon neutral in its operation, a boon to the renewable energy industry. It is a pipeline that would have provided increased energy security to North America in the clouds of ever more uncertainty in the political landscape, a pipeline providing valuable jobs and benefits to thousands of workers, indigenous organizations and land owners in two countries, a pipeline built upon the goodwill developed between two of the world's advanced democracies in delivering sound outcomes for the health of both our nations' citizens for decades now.

Now Keystone XL is a symbol of the victory of loud, self-interested, regressive voices overruling sound regulation and environmental science, a symbol of empty political rhetoric and repetitive misinformation triumphing over an actually better environmental outcome, a symbol that beneficial work undertaken and billions of dollars in good faith can be overruled by fiat, without consequence. Most of all, for Canadians it is a symbol of what happens when our elected federal politicians sit on their hands and fail to advocate for Canada's proactive solutions for environmental advancement, indigenous participation in our economies and building on our competitive strengths.

Let us assess the very real negative outcomes that are being felt today. Let us remember the workers and their families, the ones who trained and built careers focused on adding value and getting world-class resources to market. Let us remember that, in the end, the business we are in, as politicians, is about looking after people. In that respect, the current government needs to do better.

With this stroke of a pen, thousands of well-trained, middle-class Canadians will have worse outcomes in their lives. Let us think about those men and women for a moment now and how their lives have changed suddenly and, in their view, nonsensically. Do they think the current government is working for them? The failure here is the lack of concerted advocacy by the government on issues that matter to these workers and the technologically and environmentally advanced solutions they provide.

Where was the government while the option of cancelling this important project was advanced and discussed?

Nine months ago, the prospect of this cancellation became very real. Two months ago, the possibility was crystal clear. We have seen the current government act on files when it felt it should be active. We have seen a powerful reaction to objectionable tariffs against our Canadian aluminum and steel industries. We have seen the leadership of the current government in taking actions above and beyond accepted democratic norms to save jobs in one engineering company. Last week, the workers and indigenous stakeholders in this project got the benefit of a line item in a phone call between our Prime Minister and a new American president. The dichotomy is quite clear.

In my previous work, decisions such as this presented an opportunity to assess winners and losers, usually presenting a path forward. Much has been lost here.

I have spoken about the workers. I have spoken about indigenous reconciliation. Keystone XL had equity representation from indigenous participants, who would have made great steps forward on a path to economic reconciliation. I have spoken about the energy security and the environmental advances that have been thwarted. I have spoken about the billions of dollars and years of planning and building that will leave a piece of world-class infrastructure half finished.

I have not spoken enough about the Canada-U.S. bilateral relationship, but that is a huge casualty in this decision. Last year, we watched this government accept that it had badly negotiated a renewed North American free trade agreement. Real negotiators saw through our team's virtue signalling and inability to solve difficult issues. I listened as our lead minister on the file stated that her greatest success was removing the energy-sharing agreement between the previous text of NAFTA. I knew then that this government did not understand the nature of the trade between our two countries.

The U.S. government's decision on Keystone XL shows that Canada's energy trade with our dominant energy trading partner is expendable. That is not comfort. That is real risk.

Canada-U.S. trade was solidified three decades ago by leaders on both sides who understood how strong we were together. This government alludes to a special relationship with the incoming U.S. administration. If so, it needs to be utilized. The initial results are discouraging. If they are not solving big issues together as two leading democracies that are also interdependent should be, clearly something has been lost.

The outcome here is severe for our country. We have an economy that will not grow as a result of what has happened here nearly as much as it should. Our balance of trade will suffer significantly. In 2019, the number was $16 billion that we took because of the differential we received on our main resource that we export. Our balance of trade siphoning off Canadian value to other countries is huge and is going to continue to grow.

Jobs are being exported from Canada because of these decisions. Work here is being cancelled. Workers here are being laid off. All of this deserves so much more action than an indifferent shrug from this Prime Minister.

Visual Displays—Speaker's Ruling

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Before I go to questions and comments, I want to come back to the point of order that was raised and my decision. I will refer members to chapter 13 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, which, on page 617, says:

Speakers have consistently ruled that visual displays or demonstrations of any kind used by Members to illustrate their remarks or emphasize their positions are out of order. Similarly, props of any kind have always been found to be unacceptable in the Chamber.

I would ask members to please be very collaborative with the decision I have just indicated. I know that it is a time when we are wearing masks to protect ourselves and others, but members are to ensure that the messaging on them is not being used to put a point across.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Keystone XL Pipeline

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague.

My colleague and I are on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, which recently devoted six meetings to the forestry industry. I wonder if what is happening with Keystone XL is an opportunity to think about Alberta's transition away from fossil fuels.

Does my colleague agree with me that there should be a Canadian strategy to diversify Alberta's economy rather than sticking with fossil fuels, our old standards?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Bloc Québécois for his question.

In my opinion, this is a provincial jurisdiction.

The issue with provincial jurisdiction in diversifying the economy is something that the Canadian government should probably not tread on in this case, and I am certain my colleague in the Bloc Québécois would respect that as well.

I think the other point we want to make here, when we talk about transitioning, is how diversified the actual Alberta economy is. Energy is going to continue to be a part of our world for decades to come, and a good part of that energy will continue to come, as it has continuously here, according to all international organizations, from fossil fuels. Every indication we have is that the Alberta oil output will continue to increase. Finding a market is going to be the main problem, otherwise we will be beholden in the future to foreign sources of oil in the world. This oil is better economically, and this oil is better environmentally. This is the transition we are moving toward with the technology.

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

Madam Speaker, I remain consistently amazed at how Conservatives seem to be completely oblivious to where we are in the world at present, with regard to climate change and the looming climate disaster that is heading our way. We quite literally cannot continue to go the way we are going for decades and decades, but I want to concentrate my remarks on what the Conservatives are proposing to do. This was not exactly a secret. The Biden administration made clear what its decision would be with Keystone XL.

Are the Conservatives proposing to levy trade sanctions to sue the new administration? In my opinion, that would be just fantastic for Canada-U.S. relations with the new administration. I just want to get clear what the Conservatives are trying to do with the new U.S. administration.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, yes, we are very focused on how we actually decarbonize the economy, including in Alberta in the energy sector. I think all efforts to advance that cause are being ignored by my colleague in the other party. I really would hope he pays attention to all the progress that is being made in industries across Canada in addressing decarbonization, and looking at how that actually affects the world.

In this project, members can take a look at the exactly 20% reduction in CO2 emissions from the oil going toward the gulf refineries, as opposed to the other oil that would be refined in that location. We are actually much further ahead with a zero-CO2-emission transportation network, taking it from one of the world's greatest resources, the Alberta oil sands, down to the market that processes it most efficiently, and displacing foreign oil that has a much heavier environmental footprint.

We are losing in this environmentally. Canada is losing economically, and North America is losing from an energy security perspective.

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, I am speaking from the island of Newfoundland, the ancestral homeland of the Mi'kmaq and Beothuk, one of Canada's three oil-producing provinces. This is an important debate. It is as important as our oil and gas workers are to the Canadian economy. It is as important as the industry is to the Canadian economy.

I want to speak on the record and say that we are disappointed in this decision. We are not happy with this news. There are thousands of workers and their families who will be impacted by this.

This is our biggest industry. It is our number one export. We are the fourth-largest producers of oil and gas in the world, and we are good at it. This is not just an Alberta issue or a Saskatchewan issue. This is a Canadian issue.

The United States is the single largest customer of Canada's biggest export. We have over $100 billion in cross-border energy trade with them. We are their biggest supplier, with 23% of crude consumed in the U.S. coming from Canada. We contribute to American energy security and economic competitiveness, and that supports thousands of jobs on both sides of the border.

The U.S. will still need Canadian heavy crude. That does not change with President Biden's decision. The U.S. Midwest and Rocky Mountain regions source crude nearly exclusively from Canada, and Canadian crude represents approximately 70% of the feed stock to refineries in those regions. In October 2020, Canada sent approximately 2.3 million barrels per day to the United States.

This relationship is vital to both countries. We made a strong argument for this project at every level and at every chance we could, from Ambassador Hillman to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister advocated for this project long before he was Prime Minister. Four years ago, in Houston, the Prime Minister said that nothing is more essential to the U.S. economy than access to a secure, reliable source of energy, and Canada is that source. It was true then, and it remains true today.

The Prime Minister brought it up in his very first conversation with the president-elect in November and again just on Friday. He expressed our disappointment with the decision directly with the President. Every week in the fall of 2020, every single week, I was on the phone with Alberta's energy minister and the former member for Edmonton—Leduc James Rajotte to discuss how we could get this project done. We took a team Canada approach. We stood shoulder to shoulder with the Government of Alberta in making the case.

I ask members to not take it just from me, but to also listen to what Premier Kenney said. He said that he was very happy that the federal foreign affairs minister had said that Keystone XL was at the top of the U.S. agenda. He said that he was very happy with the strong advocacy by Canada's ambassador to the United States.

What now? Where do we go from here? Do we, like some are suggesting, start a trade war with our closest ally and largest trading partner, the single largest customer for Canadian crude?

I have not yet heard a single argument that would convince me that a trade war is in the best interests of our oil and gas workers. We have a responsibility to Albertans to safeguard our relationship with the single largest customer for Canadian crude. There is a difference between illegal tariffs on existing products and the cancellation of a permit for a project that is not yet operational. We will not jeopardize the more than $100 billion in energy products that we export to the United States every year.

We got this relationship right with an unpredictable presidential administration for the past four years. We will get it right with the predictable one for the next four years, to the benefit of workers in Alberta, Saskatchewan and right across Canada. We will not take any lesson from the Conservatives on this, who can share nothing but a legacy of failure from 2006 until 2015. For nearly a decade there was a failure to safeguard our most important trading relationship, a failure to get major projects built, and a failure to even have a strategy. All the Conservatives did was throw public insults and negotiate in the media. They did nothing to support the thousands of energy workers in this country, except beat their chests.

Conservatives may not agree, but it is true. We could hear it from former Progressive Conservative prime minister of Canada Joe Clark, who said, “One of the real problems that I think lingers over [Keystone XL] is, before the pipeline question arose, the [Harper] Government...deliberately went out of his way to be seen as an adversary of environmentalists.” The Conservative record of inaction, and their record of open hostility on the environment, helped doom this project.

There are also some in this House who think this decision is good news. In fact, there are some in this House who are jumping up and down with joy in this decision. That shocks me. They could not be more wrong. Their lack of concern for the thousands of workers and their families that this decision impacts is shocking.

Other parties in the House claim to be the parties of workers. Keystone XL would have created thousands of good-paying union jobs on both sides of the border. I invite my colleagues on the other side who claim to stand for workers to join me in expressing disappointment with the President's decision. Join me in lamenting the loss of good union jobs in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Join me in having the backs of oil and gas workers. I know where I stand on this side of the House.

What we will do is have our workers' backs. We will stand up and support our oil and gas workers, as I am doing today and just as we have done since 2015. Let us talk TMX. We approved it. We bought it. We are building it. It has already created over 7,000 jobs. We approved NOVA Gas and NGTL 2021. Thousands more jobs were created in Alberta. We approved the Line 3 pipeline. Another 7,000 jobs were created. There was also $1.7 billion to Alberta, Saskatchewan and B.C. to clean up abandoned and inactive wells, reducing emissions and keeping oil and gas workers on the job. There was $320 million to support workers and lower emissions in the Newfoundland offshore. Every step of the way, we are laser focused on jobs and on workers.

In the toughest of times when the sector was hit with a double whammy of a global price war and a global pandemic, we had its back with the wage subsidy. That single measure kept more than 500,000 workers in their jobs during the pandemic in Alberta alone. Saskatchewan kept 32,000 workers. These are men and women who found a way to get oil out of sand. That is a remarkable thing. We need the same ingenuity, hard work and determination that our oil and gas workers show every day in our mission to lower emissions and maintain a growing and prosperous economy in this country that leaves no one behind.

I am proud of those workers. We need them now more than ever. We have a tremendous opportunity to work with an administration that is not only aligned with our priorities on climate and clean growth at the federal level, but is also very much aligned with the priorities of the governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador, where I am proud to say net-zero legislation recently passed unanimously.

Lowering our emissions with an aim of getting to net zero by 2050 is not a barrier to investment in our energy sector. It is a competitive necessity because the markets are changing. We can see that investors are making clear choices. They are putting their money into countries that are taking action on climate change seriously, and they are divesting from those that in their view are not doing enough.

The reality is that the industry knows this. It understands the direction that the markets are moving. It is why the Keystone XL of 2021 is not the same as the Keystone XL of 2015. When a company like TC Energy has the courage to go back to the drawing board and find ways to make its project greener, to make it net zero, to power pump stations with renewable energy, that sends a clear message. It is about skating to where the puck is going.

Canadian oil and gas is already being produced under some of the most stringent environmental and climate policy frameworks in the world, and Canadian oil and gas companies are leading the way. Husky, Cenovus, CNRL, Suncor and Shell are just a few of the companies that see net zero as part of their future and a key part of their economic competitiveness.

The Canadian petroleum sector is by far our country's largest investor in clean tech, routinely accounting for more than 70% of all private-sector investment in clean tech: more than $1 billion every year. BMO Capital Markets tells us that Canada's oil and gas sector is already leading the world in ESG performance. This is a finding that has been supported by studies at Yale and the World Bank. All of this matters because, by all accounts, Canadian oil and gas will continue to be a part of the world's energy mix for some time yet. None of that would have been possible without the hard work that we have done when it comes to reconciliation, diversity, inclusion and reaching our environmental targets.

We can be proud of Canadian energy. We are redoubling our efforts to achieve our common goal: a net-zero economy by 2050, a thriving Canada-wide economy and an inclusive, clean energy future. The world is watching, and Canada will keep its promises.

We can make a case for Canadian energy as we double down on our common mission of a net-zero economy by 2050, a national economy that continues to grow and a clean energy future that leaves no one behind.

The world is watching and Canada will lead. I believe that.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the minister's remarks and they bring me back to the day after President Biden appeared to have been elected. The Electoral College had not yet met, but it was evident that President Biden was going to be the next president of the United States. We clearly knew, from the platform he had put forward during the election campaign, that he would cancel Keystone XL on day one. Conservatives brought forward a request for an emergency debate at that time and it was rejected. Today, it was accepted. However, in the meantime, the Liberals had an opportunity, knowing what was probably about to happen, to do something about it and make some efforts. It really appears as though nothing happened in that whole period of time.

I would ask the minister what the government did in that period of time to try to avoid this happening, and to advocate for Keystone XL? The answer seems to be that it did nothing. If the answer is not that it did nothing, it surely failed at whatever it tried to do and then kept it secret from Canadians.

What did the government do to advocate on behalf of this project and the jobs it creates for Canadians? It seems like nothing, and if it is not nothing, then the government is certainly a failure.

Which one is it? Is it nothing, or did it fail?

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure if the hon. member heard me. We worked hand in glove with the Government of Alberta. We worked with Minister Savage, the energy minister for Alberta, and the Alberta government's special representative in Washington, James Rajotte, who is a former member of this House. We worked hand in glove with our ambassador on the ground. We left no stone unturned. We did the best to make what we thought was an excellent argument. Keystone XL was a good project. We are proud to have represented it. TC Energy made every effort to change this project fundamentally.

As the Prime Minister said to us, the Keystone project of 2015 was very different from the Keystone project of 2020-21. To reach net-zero operations by making sure that pumping stations had solar or wind power, making sure that we worked with unions on both sides of the border, and making sure that we worked with indigenous communities on both sides of the border, improved that project demonstrably. We made a solid case. The President of the United States kept his commitment and made his decision in very short order after his inauguration, but we believe we have a powerful future together and for the sake of our workers, we will see it through.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his speech, which reminded me of the time he appeared before the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and told us his top priority was Keystone XL. I have to admit that surprised me.

I sincerely believe that something has gone awry in Canada around fossil fuel funding, so I would like to ask the minister the same question I asked him then. Does he not think it would be better to look at transitioning away from fossil fuels and toward clean energy than to dump way too much money into fossil fuels yet again?

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Madam Speaker, I will answer in the same way that I answered in committee. We are singularly focused on lowering emissions wherever and whenever we find them. A predominant amount of our emissions does come from the energy sector, downstream and upstream, so that is where we are concentrating a significant amount of our effort. We will do whatever it takes to lower emissions wherever we find them.

Regarding the oil and gas industry and the oil sands, in particular, last Monday Minister Savage and I met with the CEOs of the majors in the oil sands on their commitment, in a very thorough plan that we are going through with them, to reach net zero by 2050. This is about lowering emissions.

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

Madam Speaker, the minister spoke time and time again in his speech about getting to net zero. The Canada energy regulator under his ministry put out a report before Christmas that provided a projection of where Canadian oil production needed to go, and where pipeline capacity needed to go, under a scenario where we did something about climate action. It was not a scenario where we would meet net zero, but it was a scenario on climate action.

Under that scenario, which they called the evolving scenario, it was clear that we only needed one of the three big expansion pipelines that are on the books now: Line 3, Keystone and the Trans Mountain expansion. We only need one of those three to meet any possible capacity issues for the future. However, it seems that the sky is falling because Keystone XL would not be needed if Line 3 comes online at the end of this year. We would not need it. We would not need Trans Mountain. We would not need further oil-by-rail capacity.

Why are we getting so exercised about this project when his own department says we will not need it?

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Madam Speaker, one of the reasons we are getting so exercised about this issue is because thousands of people are unemployed as a result of it, or could be. It affects thousands of workers in this country. A lot more of them, frankly, are worried. We have a duty in the House to speak to this.

I would also make the argument that while we may own the pipeline that is heading west in TMX, we do not own the pipeline that is heading south with KXL in this case. The market has an important role here. It is the leading role in determining how investment decisions should be made, but it is our government's duty to set the parameters on that and to incent what we believe to be extraordinarily important goals, namely net-zero emissions by 2050. That is the goal we have set for ourselves, and many of our friends, colleagues and competitors around the world have also set that goal for themselves. This is an existential crisis, there is no question. It is also an economic one for many people in this country who feel that they may be left behind. We cannot allow that to happen.

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

Madam Speaker, with the minister's words, “This is an existential crisis” ringing in my ears, I will remind the minister that the only existential crisis being debated tonight is the threat of global warming becoming a runaway, self-accelerating and unstoppable threat to our children's future.

I would also remind him that it is extremely unfair to say to those who think this was a good and right decision that we are somehow joyous and not caring about workers losing their jobs. I would no more say that people who are supporting the oil sands are deliberately and consciously threatening my grandchildren's future than I would say it was right to be celebrating as though it does not matter when people suffer an immediate downturn in their economic prospects. We must bring in a just transition act. We must ensure that workers have transferable skills, which they do. They are very resourceful. They are very willing and able to move to other industries.

I think I may be the only member in this place who actually read the entire State Department environmental impact statement on the Keystone pipeline when it was delivered to former secretary of state John Kerry. Nothing about the project has changed in the fundamentals of why the Obama administration turned it down. We know the Trump administration approved it against all the evidence, and I suggest to my Conservative friends if they really wanted our current Prime Minister to help protect Keystone, the only thing he could have done was go to the United States to campaign for Donald Trump, which is something I am sure—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I have to allow the minister to respond.

The hon. minister, please.

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Madam Speaker, we are singularly focused on those workers because they are the ones who built this industry and the ones who will lower emissions. Ensuring they are part of the solution is extraordinarily important. In fact, we will not be able to reach net zero without these men and women.

Making sure they are okay is exactly what we attempted to do during the pandemic with the $1.7 billion to look after orphaned and inactive wells. Not only is that the right thing to do environmentally, but it will also make sure that these talented and experienced men and women are kept in the industry and kept in play as we look to the next few months and years, and in fact right now as we attempt to lower emissions in this country and achieve net zero by 2050. These are the men and women who will do it.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would perhaps like to begin by saying that I really feel for Alberta's workers. I really feel for them because we went through basically the same thing in the forestry sector that they are going through right now.

The pulp and paper industry completely fell apart in the 1990s. In the forestry sector, trade wars wiped out nearly half the harvesting community's major players. The crisis caused a great deal of distress among the workers in Quebec.

When I was young, my father taught me that it is always best to tell the truth. However, since being elected to the House in October 2019, I have been under the impression, considering the Liberal and Conservative one-upmanship, that no one wants to tell Albertans the truth. It is a hard truth, but simple to understand. Because of climate change, most large investment funds are moving away from fossil fuels. Many countries are turning away from fossil fuels, seeking a more carbon-neutral economy and new green energy technologies. I think we need to be honest with Albertans and tell them frankly that this industry is, in the medium to short term, doomed to failure.

I have seen many such failures since coming to the House. I saw it with Teck Frontier, when the Liberals and Conservatives engaged in mutual finger pointing. One blamed the other for not taking action. The Liberals said that the Conservatives had done no better when they were in power. Each blamed the other instead of accepting reality and responding in the best way possible: planning the transition for Albertans.

The same thing happened with Keystone XL. In 2015, the Obama administration said it would not go ahead with the project. Donald Trump, the epitome of the irrational political actor, came to power, and he wanted to see the project through. Albertans ignored signals from an irrational political leader and decided it was a good idea to go ahead. It was $1.5 billion, and I think that decision was very—

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

Order.

The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean on a point of order.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that we did not clearly hear my colleague say that he would be sharing his time with the member for Repentigny. I believe that it was not clear.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my loyal listener, the member from Lac-Saint-Jean, for reminding me that I am sharing my time with the delightful member for Repentigny.

I believe that the Alberta government was very misguided to invest $1.5 billion in a project that may have been doomed to failure. In my opinion, it created a frenzy of support for the fossil fuel sector that many Canadian politicians joined because it seemed like a winning political move in the west. We may occasionally win by lying to people, but it never pays off in the end.

I want to point out that I really empathize with Alberta's workers. I also want to mention how shocked I was when I arrived in the House of Commons in October and heard many Conservative colleagues repeatedly shout, “Build the pipeline!” This call to build pipelines was being repeated constantly, and I want to remind members that this was at a time when Canada was divided. We were being told that there were deep divisions between the west and the east, and the east did not understand that the west wanted to sell its oil. Having followed what happened to the forestry industry very closely, I have to say that this bothered me, since I have extensively studied a phenomenon known as Dutch disease.

In the early 2000s, the Quebec economy was completely destabilized by the Canadian oil economy. The rising dollar meant that Quebec's manufacturing sector was no longer competitive. If I am not mistaken, 55,000 jobs were lost in Quebec from 2002 to 2007. The Quebec economy very much paid the price for the oil industry.

The story I keep hearing, that the generous equalization payments made possible by Alberta oil have helped fund social programs, would make the average Quebec nationalist's hair stand on end. In fact, the hon. member for Malpeque has told me a few times that Canadian taxpayers are not Quebeckers' ATM card, which is along the same lines.

There are many things about the oil industry that might be irritating to the average Quebecker and cause grievances, but let us not focus on that too much. I believe we should instead put our heads together and find a solution for Alberta's economic transition.

There is a solution. The Standing Committee on Natural Resources held six meetings on the forestry industry, where we heard from many stakeholders who spoke about the bioeconomy. The bioeconomy involves recovering forestry and agricultural waste to replace almost all petrochemical products. Stéphane Renou from FP Innovations spoke about a wonderful opportunity for Albertan expertise, since Alberta already has a workforce of chemical engineers. What a wonderful opportunity for these people to get involved in the energy transition, be part of a new niche and develop an economy that will no longer rely solely on fossil materials.

Unfortunately, Canada's strategy in that regard is non-existent. We all know, and many stakeholders confirmed, that the transition to the bioeconomy requires a lot of capital. Companies cannot make that transition alone. A national strategy is needed. Canada implemented this sort of national strategy in the late 1970s or early 1980s. As members may have guessed, the national strategy in question sought to make the oil sands profitable because we did not have the technology to do so at the start. In all, $70 billion was collectively invested, 20% of which came from Quebec.

Why not make the decision to support Alberta's economy in a different way by promoting the bioeconomy and getting involved in industries that are less harmful to the environment and have a smaller carbon footprint?

In closing, I have been having some fun with these numbers over the past few months. I did some research into what has been invested in the oil industry and the forestry industry over the past four years, and I came up with two numbers.

Over the past four years, the federal government has given the oil and gas industry $24 billion, $12 billion of which was used to buy the pipeline. The government invested $950 million in the entire Canadian forestry industry over that same period.

Crunching those investment numbers, it turns out that 75% of that amount is loans. These two natural resource sectors prove that there really is a double standard.

I have just a minute left, so I will quickly close with a simple warning. If a member of the House suggests replacing Keystone XL with Energy East, I promise that member will run up against the Bloc Québécois.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, as I come from Alberta, there are a couple of things that perhaps the member should be aware of, namely that the environmental aspects of oil sands development there are the best in the world and should be respected.

Earlier on the member mentioned that Albertans always say that we need to build pipelines. It is true, because it is so important. However, one of the other things that was said is that we were there to protect Quebec as well. We stood up for the aluminum industry and talked about how it was important to be able to sell that product around the world. We did that because of the fact Quebec can do it in an environmentally friendly way, just as Alberta oil is done in an environmentally friendly way.

When we look at what else can happen when the U.S. starts replacing our oil with oil from other places around the world, how is that really going to help the planet? Maybe we should all be talking about the things that we do that make Canada great.