Debates of Jan. 25th, 2021

Keystone XL Pipeline

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the member from the NDP, ironically, is totally offside her provincial counterparts in Alberta. They should maybe have a conversation about the reality Alberta is facing. Even the Alberta NDP has figured out that this is an important project.

Here is the reality. There is a business case here because companies have spent hundreds of millions of dollars investing in it. Currently we have a price differential in our oil that has caused Canadians to lose out on tens of billions of dollars of revenue that goes to fund the social services, which I know that member specifically is very passionate about. They want to play politics on this, yet the NDP, the Bloc Québécois and many Liberals fail to acknowledge that this pipeline is the best thing that could happen to the environment in our country. It would cut emissions significantly. Currently that oil is being sold by rail and through older pipeline infrastructure that will eventually have to be retired. This is an efficient way to ensure that a world-class product produced in Alberta, in Canada, gets to market.

While the NDP and other green activist left parties want to play politics on this issue, the Conservatives are standing up for Alberta and our world-class energy sector.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I agree with a great deal of my colleague's speech with respect to workers and their families. Many of us have risen this evening to say that there are solutions. For example, in Saskatchewan, workers and even tools from the oil sector are being used to develop geothermal energy. It is possible to retrain people in other sectors, including renewable energies.

My question is on another subject. President Biden made an election promise. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on election promises. Will the Conservatives make promises during the election period? Does the member not agree that when someone makes a commitment, makes an election promise, they should do everything they can to follow through?

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic. I have heard from the Bloc all night about how somehow the national Government of Canada should be intruding in provincial jurisdiction. I find that ironic, and further, I find it ironic that the Bloc would be talking about election promises. It is a separatist party that has been around for, what, 40 years and has accomplished nothing that it ever set out to accomplish. Certainly Bloc members need to think carefully before trying to lecture us.

I was incredibly surprised by the argument that the Prime Minister made, saying the government will respect the decision because it was the President's election promise. Quite frankly, the Liberals have done very little in terms of respecting their election promises and the laundry list of failures on that front, yet when it comes to standing up for a project, and against what is effectively an economic sanction against Canada on the first day of a new administration, the Liberals failed entirely to stand up for Canadian interests. That is a national shame.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very difficult day. It is a dark day, not only for Albertans, but also, I hope, for members of Parliament across this country. Many of my colleagues have said today that when the information came out last Tuesday about the impending cancellation of Keystone XL, even though there had been a lot of hints that this would happen, it brought reality home.

I had a call on Friday from one of my constituents who is among the thousand workers who were laid off. I had another constituent whose company lost a contract, and it is costing him $100,000 a month. Do members know how many employees he is now having to lay off? I have had dozens of calls from constituents and their families about the devastating impact this decision is having on their families and communities.

This is happening in the middle of a pandemic, which has already devastated every corner of our economy, and to add this on to that has been particularly difficult. When I answer those phone calls, the response from my constituents is this: Why is no one fighting for us?

It is easy for colleagues from across the floor from other parties to say that, well, we are just going to transition to other jobs, and we are going to find them something else to do. What is that job? I have been hearing that from the Prime Minister for five years and we have 200,000 energy workers out of work in Alberta alone. None of them are coming to my office saying, “Thank goodness I have this job at a renewable resource industry”, because it does not exist without massive government subsidies.

We have talked about those thousand workers that TC Energy had to lay off on that first day, but this goes way beyond those thousand workers. Jack Mintz from the University of Calgary is predicting that there will be 3,000 direct jobs lost, and 14,000 indirect jobs will be lost in Alberta alone. That is not counting jobs in Saskatchewan, service company jobs or jobs in other industries that would have benefited from this pipeline.

Again, this is another hit to Albertans at the worse possible time, and they are asking why no one is standing up and fighting for them in this government. That is what they want. That is what they deserve.

The impacts of losing this project are not just about Keystone XL. For many Albertans, and I would say, many Canadians, this is just the last straw of what has been a repeated attack on Alberta energy and Canada's economy. There is no question that when we come out of the COVID-19 pandemic, our country will already be on rocky financial footing. Much of that was because of out-of-control Liberal spending before the pandemic.

However, to come out of the pandemic and get Canada back on its financial feet, we are going to have to look at industries that we can rely on to be revenue generators. There are only a handful of those industries in Canada, and our energy sector is one of them. It is not just one of them, but the most important one, the one that creates the most jobs and the one that creates the most revenue for every level of government across this country.

Let us back up a little before we even talk about Keystone XL. Let us talk about the position that the Liberal government has put this country in when we talk about our energy industry.

The second the Liberals got into power, they cancelled northern gateway. They drowned energy east in a flood of red tape and new regulations that no other infrastructure project had ever had to face before. They purchased the TMX pipeline, and my colleague, the parliament secretary, likes to think that they have put more money into the energy industry than Harper ever did. Harper never had to pay $4.5 billion for a pipeline that the private sector was going to build anyway. That $4.5 billion is now likely more than $12.5 billion, because every delay and every year that project does not continue with construction, it means product is not moving and it is not generating revenue. That $4.5-billion investment that the Liberals like to talk about is now a $12.5-billion white elephant on the backs of Canadians taxpayers.

We continue to cripple this industry with bad policy, such as Bill C-69, the no pipelines bill, the tanker ban and a carbon tax that will go to $170 a tonne, which is far beyond what any other country is putting on their economy, putting us further and further behind in terms of not being competitive.

What has this virtue signalling gotten us? Has this earned us any social justice? Has this earned us any support from the activists? It has absolutely not. I wonder why we are trying, because they will never take yes for an answer.

We already have the most stringent environmental and human rights standards in the world in Canada's energy sector. That is what we should be talking about, not phasing out our energy sector and not crippling it with bad policy just to try to appease someone else, who we know will never be appeased. Those goal posts will always move, and President Biden has proven that.

Let us look at Keystone specifically. Keystone had put more than $1 billion into renewable energy to power that pipeline, more than $1 billion to ensure that it was emissions neutral. That still was not good enough, so it is impossible to go any further.

We have talked a lot about this being an Alberta issue, and there is no question that this has hit my Alberta and Saskatchewan colleagues hard. It is very frustrating to hear from colleagues from other parties that we should just get over it. However, this is not just an Alberta issue. This is a Canadian issue.

There are projects that have been decimated or cancelled, such as the Teck Frontier mine, which we have talked about. Warren Buffett has pulled $4 billion out of a Quebec LNG project in Saguenay, Quebec. There is the cancellation of energy east. The GE factory in Peterborough, Ontario, was going to expand, and that expansion was cancelled. There were 350 workers laid off in Peterborough. That plant was making turbines for pipelines. Therefore, this is not just an Alberta issue. This is a Canadian issue. This is about our economic and energy sovereignty.

What is at stake next? This cancellation of Keystone and the lack of a fight from the Liberal government has emboldened these activists. Next in line is Line 5, which goes from Canada into Michigan. If that pipeline is cancelled by Enbridge, the Enbridge project, it could cost Sarnia 5,000 to 6,000 jobs and impact the jobs at Ontario oil refineries. Again, this is not just an Alberta problem. This is a Canadian problem, and I want my colleagues from other parties across Canada to understand that.

We are not speaking just for our constituents, which of course is our number one priority, but we are also speaking about what is best for Canada. That is what we are asking the Prime Minister and the government to do, to start standing up for what is best for Canada's energy workers and our country, not for what is best for the Liberals' global friends, but what is best for Canadian prosperity.

This is about prosperity. We are selling our oil at a massive discount to the United States, which sells it on the world market. That is schools, hospitals, bridges, roads and critical social infrastructure that could be built here in Canada, but which are now going to be built in the United States, which is no longer our largest customer, but our largest competitor.

There has been lots of discussion that this is about climate change and fighting emissions. Members can bet it is. Keystone pipeline would have been a very important tool to addressing climate change and reducing emissions. Do members know who benefits from the cancellation of Keystone? I am going to look at these statistics. How about Mexico with $12.3 billion, Saudi Arabia with $11.5 billion, Iraq with $7 billion, Colombia with $6.5 billion, and Russia and Venezuela. I could go on. All of these countries are now going to be filling the void that is left by Keystone. What do members think the human rights and environmental standards are of Russia, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia compared to those in Canada?

If the fight really is about climate change and emissions reductions, then these opponents of Canadian energy and Canadian pipelines would actually be speaking the truth in talking about exactly what we do here in Canada. We do it better than anybody else in the world. They should understand that and speak proudly about it.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's speech, but there is a lot of misinformation here. Forty-eight per cent of the total amount of crude that gets imported into the United States comes from Canada. We exported 3.7 million barrels per day, every day, in 2019. Ninety-eight per cent of Canada's crude exports go to the United States. There is no problem exporting crude to the United States: 79% of our imports are from the United States, so we are trading oil back and forth.

The problem with job losses is companies like Suncor that are automating the industry. Without building more infrastructure, there are no more jobs in the oil patch. This is a sunset industry, and when we see the big money, the smart money, not investing in oil and gas in Canada and the United States, we see governments, and provincial governments in the case of Alberta and British Columbia, throwing taxpayer dollars down a swirling drain to keep projects going.

We have international agreements. Stephen Harper signed an agreement in 2009 in Copenhagen to reduce emissions by 17% over 2005 levels. Eight provinces and three territories, representing 85% of the population, met that target. Two provinces increased their emissions so much that we levelled right out, and they were Alberta and Saskatchewan.

What do we do about our international commitments? Out of the G7, we have the highest climb in greenhouse gas emissions. They have increased by 21%. All other G7 nations have lowered their greenhouse gas emissions, except for the United States, which has only increased its emissions by 3%, and that was under the Trump administration. Where does the member stand—

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Foothills.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member should be ashamed of himself and his party for cheering the loss of 14,000 jobs in this country. I do not recall him ever standing up and cheering when we had an economic downturn and a loss of jobs in the auto sector or the aeronautics sector. Would he be standing up and cheering if we lost tens of thousands of jobs in the tourism sector in his riding? All of us should be—

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

I am not cheering. This is a reality check.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

You had your speech. This is—

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Order. I want to remind hon. members that this is not a shouting match. We are speaking through the Speaker to everyone else in the chamber.

The hon. member for Foothills.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my point is about the misinformation the member is putting out there. We have reduced the carbon footprint to produce a barrel of oil by 30%. The technology and innovation in Canada is second to none. When it comes to reducing emissions and addressing climate change, Canada is not the problem. Canadian energy is not the problem. Canadian energy is a vital part of the solution, and it is about time we started talking about that instead of attacking what we do best.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we need a government that protects workers and invests in the jobs of the future, in low-carbon jobs. We also need real action on the climate crisis and need climate accountability.

I will ask the member the same question I asked his colleague, since his colleague would not answer. The member mentioned he is opposed to certain climate legislation that would impede pipeline construction. Canada's energy regulator put out a report that said Keystone XL is incompatible with net-zero legislation. Is the member across the way going to be voting against the net-zero legislation?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about the importance of fighting for jobs, and I want to answer that part of her question first. With Keystone specifically, TC Energy had promised that every single one of the jobs in the United States would be unionized labour, so the NDP should be supporting these types of things. If she indeed wants to fight for jobs, why is the NDP not supporting something like this?

I will reiterate what I said before. If the member's fight is to reduce emissions for climate change, Keystone was the epitome of what we should be doing. TC Energy invested more than a billion dollars in renewable energy to power this pipeline. It was going to be emissions-neutral.

Again, we are doing everything we possibly can to meet the NDP and Green activists' goalposts, but every time we get there, what happens? They move the goalpost a little further. We will never appease them. Let us start talking about what we can do to address these issues.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in this House, virtually of course, and talk on this important topic.

Before I start, there is about a half-hour left in the day here in Nova Scotia, and it is Robbie Burns day in Scotland. My family has deep Scottish ties, as I know the member for Foothills does, as well. This is the MacDonell ancient tartan, and certainly we are thinking of all those celebrating Robbie Burns today into the wee hours of the morning and want to highlight the important connection that Canada has with Scotland and its place in the world.

The member for Foothills and the member for Battle River—Crowfoot before him spoke quite passionately and quite intensely about the human impact of what this means to workers in Alberta and Saskatchewan. I have some statistics here, and I thought the Minister of Natural Resources spoke quite well earlier in this debate about what this sector means, particularly to the western economy but indeed to the Canadian economy also.

We as parliamentarians cannot get around the fact that this is our largest industry in the country. I do not have the statistics right in front of me, but it is about 10%—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has a point of order.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the member forgot to indicate that he will be sharing his time with the member for Don Valley West. I wanted to make sure he had the opportunity to put that on the record if that is the case.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I am sure the hon. member for Kings—Hants appreciates the brief interruption. I wonder if he might add whether that is, in fact, his intention.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague. It is 11:30 at night here, so he will have to excuse me. I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member of Parliament for Don Valley West.

As I was mentioning, this is an important industry to our country. It is our largest industry. It is our number one export. As parliamentarians, we cannot get around the fact, and we should not be afraid of the fact, that Canada is the fourth-largest producer of oil and gas in the world. As a parliamentarian, I was disappointed in the decision the Biden government made, in part because of the impact it is going to have on the workers and their families. Members of Parliament in the House tonight have spoken about that, in part because this project was already started.

I would say that this was about creating regulatory certainty, whether it is in the United States, Canada or anywhere in the world. If companies are going through those processes, we need to be able to move those forward.

As was already articulated by my colleagues, this is not just an issue for Alberta and Saskatchewan. This is an issue from every end of the country. As the member of Parliament for Kings—Hants, I have many constituents who have had their start, built their livelihood and worked in these sectors. They either still transition between western Canada and the Maritime provinces or have made their start, come back home, and used their trade and the skill set they learned to contribute to our economy in Nova Scotia, pay their mortgage and make their living.

Sometimes I hear too much of the narrative from members of Parliament that this is a regional issue. No, this is important to workers and families across the country. Indeed, the impact of this industry has important benefits, paying for public services from Vancouver Island to Newfoundland. I want to make sure that is on the record.

It is important to note that despite the fact that this is a setback and the fact that the Biden administration has not approved Keystone, the relationship remains important. As I understand it, about $100 billion of energy exports cross our national borders every year. This relationship that we have with the United States will remain important. Right now, 23% of the crude consumed in the United States comes from Canada. We certainly play an important role in energy security for North American markets.

I had the chance to tune in at different times tonight before I had the floor, and the narrative became that the government has “failed” to drive this project forward. Often it is members from the opposition ranks who like to suggest that government fails on issues that sometimes are completely outside the control of the Government of Canada. Of course, world oil prices are not dictated by the Government of Canada. I remember with Teck Frontier that some of the conversation there was around the future of the oil and gas industry. There was a lot of narrative that the government was not doing enough to support it, but of course we do not control world oil prices.

In terms of what we could do to work with the United States, our ambassador has been on this, as has the Prime Minister, from day one, in terms of engaging on this issue. If members do not want to believe me, the Premier of Alberta, Jason Kenney, as early as last week, talked about his support for the work that was going on behind the scenes to advance this project.

At the end of the day, the United States is a sovereign country. We have a strong relationship and the Government of Canada can do its utmost, as we have, but we do not control those decisions being made outside our national borders.

The suggestion that is being made is that we should retaliate, that we should create a trade war of sorts, not unlike what we saw from the last American administration, a trade war with what is both our closest economic partner, because of its proximity and its market to Canada, and also one of our most important partners from a security perspective. I do not think the suggestion that we should retaliate brings any benefit to oil and gas workers in Alberta, Saskatchewan, or anywhere in this country. That could only jeopardize the existing relationship of that $100 billion that goes back and forth every year and is crucial to our supply chain in North America.

I want to touch on a point the member for Foothills made. I have to be fair and make sure I am balanced in my remarks tonight, because I thought the member for Foothills spoke quite eloquently. I thought he was convincing on many points, but he talked about appeasing social activists almost as though the government is moving in a direction just to appease a small group of individuals who might be very prominent on environmental issues. The member for Victoria, or perhaps it was someone else, might have spoken about the fact that global financial markets are focused on investing in industries and companies that are moving in this direction. In fact, Canadian energy companies understand this. They are moving in this direction.

On the suggestion that this is appeasing social activists, we have international agreements to be able to move on this. This is not about appeasing social activists; this is about recognizing we have work to do in the international community. Energy companies know that they have a social responsibility to get there. I think there is a way to balance both, and I will get to that in a moment, but I found that comment to be a bit unfortunate in what was otherwise a quite good speech.

There is a lot of finger pointing, but we also have to compare and contrast to the last government as well, a Conservative government under Stephen Harper, our former prime minister. In terms of the legacy the Conservatives left behind, they were not able to advance the projects we have been able to advance, and I will go through some of them in a moment, but there is a lot of blame being sent toward our current government that fails to recognize the existing record that they had.

One Progressive Conservative former prime minister, Mr. Joe Clark, who actually was briefly the member of Parliament in Kings—Hants in the early 2000s, said, “One of the real problems that I think lingers over [Keystone] is, before the pipeline question arose, the [Harper government] deliberately went out of its way to be seen as an adversary of environmentalists.” That is perhaps similar to the comment made by the member for Foothills today, and for Mr. Clark it was problematic. That is the type of Progressive Conservative thinking we need to see more of in our opposition party, which is about balancing environmental interests along with economic ones. That is certainly what our government is doing.

To talk about our record, we approved TMX and bought it when it was necessary, and we are building it. It has created over 7,000 jobs. We have approved NOVA Gas, and a thousand more jobs will be created in Alberta. Line 3 has been approved, which is another 7,000 jobs created. As well, $1.7 billion has been provided to the western provinces to help with abandoned and inactive wells, which is helping reduce emissions and keep oil and gas workers on the job. Closer to my end of the country, in Atlantic Canada there has been $320 million to support workers and lower emissions in Newfoundland's offshore.

I wish I had more time to go on, but my point is that it is similar to when we talked about Teck Frontier. We have certain members of Parliament in this House who do not believe our oil and gas sector plays a prominent role in the days ahead and we have members of Parliament who fail to recognize that we also have to move on our environmental record. Those two can co-exist. Our government is the one to make that happen.

We will work in the days ahead with industry, as they are already doing, to make sure they are sustainable and that there is a future for this important sector in our country.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated that the member said we worked together and that Canadians all across this country were supporting the oil and gas sector. I have a question when it comes to building pipelines. I know this one has an issue, in that until we get a new president in the United States, I do not see it proceeding.

However, the member for Winnipeg North said the Liberals have more pipelines built. My question for the member is whether he would support a pipeline going to eastern Canada so that we can support each other and get rid of tankers coming down the St. Lawrence Seaway.

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

Mr. Speaker, if there was an application to come back on that process and it made sense from a financial and environmental perspective, absolutely. I have said that to members on my doorstep. We import a significant amount of our crude from other countries, yet we have the ability to do so right in Canada. I do not believe there is an application in process, but if that were to come and if it met the regulatory approval, of course.

I want to quickly talk about Goldboro LNG, a liquefied natural gas project being proposed in eastern Nova Scotia. It is important to getting Germany, one of our G7 partners, off coal. It is a project that supports Canadian energy workers, but also helps reduce our emissions in the global context.

These are things we have to work at, especially companies that are committed to getting to net zero.

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

Mr. Speaker, this evening's debate is quite clear. Everyone knows the Bloc Québécois' position on Keystone XL, and the position of the Conservatives, the Green Party and the NDP. However, we are not so sure where the Liberals stand on this.

I have asked the same question four times. The first time, I thought that my question had been misunderstood, and that was fine. The second time, I still gave the government the benefit of the doubt. The third time, I felt like there might be some bad faith at work. This fourth time, however, I am sure that my colleague from Kings—Hants will answer me because he will have understood the question, especially if he has been following the debate since the beginning. What I want to know is not complicated, and I hope that the government, or at least one of its members, will answer me.

In 2014 and 2015, the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, who is also the Minister of Canadian Heritage, tweeted his joy at the obstacles that Keystone XL was encountering. I have dozens and dozens of tweets from that member. Now the Liberals are saying that they are disappointed, pained and sad to see Keystone XL cancelled. I would like to get the answer I am looking for, namely whether cabinet is happy or disappointed that Keystone XL is cancelled. It is quite simple.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me say a couple of things to that long question the member asked.

First, I am the member of Parliament for Kings—Hants, not a member of the executive council, but I certainly have dialogue with my colleagues. I will leave speaking on behalf of cabinet to my cabinet colleagues.

I will say this. The Liberal Party, not unlike other parties, has a variety of opinions in its caucus. Some members have certain beliefs, others have different ones along the line. I made it very clear that I believe Canadian energy, our oil and gas sector and our environmental targets can co-exist and both are going to be important in the days ahead.

I will let other members speak for themselves, particularly with respect to our government. Our Minister of Natural Resources was clear about his position. As I understand it, the member from the Bloc basically is not in support of the Canadian oil and gas sector. That really flies in the face of the equalization payments Quebec receives every year. Year after year, the Canadian oil and gas sector helps support projects and residents across the country, including in his home province.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member mentioned Robbie Burns. It is a very important point to make today.

He also mentioned that this is not just a regional question. When I go knocking on doors in my riding in the interior of British Columbia, I meet families who have family members working in Fort Mac in the oil patch, so the downturn in the oil economy is something that affects all of our ridings across the country.

To pick up on one of the points that the member for Foothills made, that workers need to see these jobs and they are tired of these promises, we need to create those jobs now. We need to invest billions of dollars. We have invested billions in pipelines. Let us invest billions in work and jobs across this country. Energy-efficiency jobs spring to mind, where people could work in their riding, my riding, work at home, be at home with their families—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

We are out of time.

I will let the hon. member for Kings—Hants give just a short response.

The hon. member.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the member. There is a global transition that is happening toward a greener economy. As I mentioned in my remarks, energy companies are focused on that too. They are committed to being there. We can find a balance to be able to move forward. We have invested in green energy, $15 billion and a climate accountability act before Christmas. We are focused on being able to support both in the days ahead, because it is not one or the other. We can make both work.