Debates of Jan. 25th, 2021

Keystone XL Pipeline

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is very well versed on this file. She talks about it a lot in this House. Clearly, she understands the political dynamics of what is going on with pipelines in general, and in particular with this pipeline. Surely she is aware of the position that the former Obama administration had and that President Biden was part of that administration. Surely she knew that President Biden, during the campaign, had committed to this.

Given the outcome of the election, is the member surprised that this occurred, or was she expecting it to happen?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think that I took pains throughout my speech to say that this was not remotely a surprise.

Certainly, taking at once the decision that was made by the former administration, when the current President was vice-president, and then listening to the arguments that the current President made when he was a candidate, it should not remotely be a surprise that this was his decision on day one.

However, what I would say is so galling is that, even though he campaigned this way and that was the decision that was made originally, the United States took the opportunity to remove its ban on oil exports and ramp up its own oil and gas production to become the world's leading oil producer and exporter.

I think what is quite clear is that the Liberals have failed at a variety of opportunities to fight to ensure that KXL could go ahead, but then on the flip side have been busy imposing a series of policies and legislation domestically that has put Canada in this landlocked and extremely vulnerable position, which has spinoff ramifications for the entire economy and certainly for every community in every province across the country.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that it is a pleasure to rise in the House today, but once again we're going to be debating a cancelled project that has effects on people across Saskatchewan, in my riding of Regina—Lewvan, and across western Canada.

I have tried to figure out how I am going to speak about the cancellation of the Keystone XL today, and whether I will be very passionate, like the previous speaker from Lakeland. I want to congratulate her for being chosen as the best representative of her constituents, because I think that is true. She does an amazing job representing the people of Lakeland, and it is a pleasure to follow her. She is an honoured friend and colleague. I thank her very much for the passion she brings to this file.

Exactly 11 months ago to the day, we were sitting in this chamber having an emergency debate on a similar topic: Teck Frontier. Within a year, we are in an emergency debate on the cancellation of the Keystone XL expansion pipeline. That speaks volumes on how the current government has pursued an energy policy. It speaks about the lack of respect the Liberals have shown to western Canadians, and it speaks about a lack of listening to what the ongoing economic situation is in our country.

The energy sector does not just provide good-paying jobs in western Canada. It provides jobs and income throughout this country. My colleague from Battle River—Crowfoot said it very well: When the energy and oil and gas sector does well, Canadians and all of Canada do well. This is a debate that should not be divisive, but should bring parliamentarians and Canadians together when we are speaking about how to ensure there are good-paying jobs going into the future.

I am going to take a different stance on how we are going to do this debate tonight, and talk about some of the innovations companies are doing to ensure the environmental sustainability and world-class environmental innovation that has gone on already without government intervention. If one can imagine it, energy companies in western Canada are already trying to do what we are trying to legislate. They are already trying to ensure they have minimal emissions. They are already trying to capture carbon.

An example was given on the CBC. I am pretty sure we know the CBC is not a big supporter of the Conservative movement across the country, but a CBC story talked about two companies that are already storing more carbon in the ground than they are emitting. The companies are Whitecap Resources and Enhance Energy.

Through carbon capture and storage and enhanced oil recovery, by burying CO2 and using it to enhance their oil recovery, reactivating wells that have not produced as much, and producing more barrels using their stored carbon, they have stored 4,000 tonnes of carbon underground, which is the equivalent of taking 350,000 cars off the roads in our country.

Leave it to western Canadian entrepreneurship and innovation to already be ahead of government. I know that might come as a surprise to many members in this chamber, but many times the private sector is ahead of what the government has already tried to do. When we look at a Liberal government that continues to try to put roadblocks in front of our energy sector, whether it be Bill C-48, Bill C-69 or the ever-increasing, burdensome, job-killing carbon tax, our people in western Canada, our energy sector and our men and women are working hard to continue to overcome these hurdles and be world leaders.

Today in this chamber I have heard people talking about the decline in oil demand. I did a quick search online, and oil demand is going to increase this year by 6% and next year by 3%. A global supply document said there will be an increase in demand until 2030 by a million barrels of oil a day. We are going to have to choose, not only in this chamber but as a country, whether we are going to be the ones who supply that oil.

Are we going to champion our oil sector around the world, and say that Canadian oil should be the increase in those supplies? Eighty-one per cent of oil is going to be shipped into Asian countries by 2050.

I am here to say that should be Canadian oil. It should not be Venezuelan oil or Saudi Arabian oil. It should be Canadian oil, which is produced by the world's best innovative entrepreneurs, with the best environmental standards in the country and in the world.

I would also like to say that the way workers are treated plays an important role in how we look at our future. Workers are treated better in Canada than in other oil-producing jurisdictions. I and the MPs for Regina—Qu'Appelle and Regina—Wascana had the opportunity to sit down and talk to USW 5890 workers over Christmas. It was a pretty tough time in Regina over the Christmas holidays. Almost 600 people were given layoff notices a week before Christmas. When we sat down and met with president Mike Day, one of the first things he told us was that everyone thinks Evraz is a steel company. He said it is not. It is an oil and gas company, because if there is no oil and gas sector, there is no steel plant in Regina. There is no co-op in Regina that has 2,300 Unifor employees making good wages. These are important things to talk about in these emergency debates, such as the one 11 months ago on Teck Frontier. We can use the numbers and talk about a billion dollars and a hundred billion litres of oil a year, but we are talking about people, their livelihoods and how they support their families.

I do not want to repeat myself, and I am sure everyone does not remember what I said 11 months ago, but it comes down to the fact that times are getting tougher for the hard-working men and women in our energy sector and they are looking for someone to support them. They have been abandoned by the member for Burnaby South, the leader of the NDP. The hard-working energy workers have been abandoned by the federal NDP. It does not support building pipelines. Continuously, they have been tossed by the wayside by the Liberal government to fulfill an agenda that has “anti-oil” written all over it. We can see it in the legislation time and again, and in the fact that we are going to have to have another of these debates, at some point in time I am sure, on another cancellation of an energy project.

The cancellations are mounting up, whether Northern Gateway, Grassy Point LNG, Saguenay or Energy East. The list goes on. When it says “cancelled”, it is the cancellation of jobs that we find the most frustrating. We slam our fists on the desks and talk about the frustration, like my colleague from Lakeland did, but as frustrated as we are, imagine the families that are trying to figure out how they are going to pay their bills in the coming weeks and months, with job after job, trying to support their kids who are going to school or going to a couple of extra events when the time comes.

We have to keep in mind that our job here, as parliamentarians, is to try and ensure we are securing the future for the next generation. That means we do not pick and choose which sectors we are going to support because we have a fundamental ideological bent one way or the other. We cannot pick and choose and get people away from a paycheque economy. It is time to put some differences aside and work together.

The Prime Minister talked about a team Canada approach. I have not seen that from the man in five years. I remember on election night not one Liberal or NDP member stood up in Saskatchewan to give a speech, because there were not any.

The Prime Minister said that he heard us, that he was listening and that we would work together. It has been two years, and we have not been able to find any common ground between us and the government. Once again, in this debate this evening, 11 months from when we held the emergency debate on Teck Frontier, we are talking about tens of thousands of good-paying jobs that disappeared in the blink of an eye.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was looking at the price for Western Canadian Select, and it is currently at $38.52 a barrel. I am amazed at how—

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I will interrupt for a moment. We are having a hard time hearing. Maybe there is a technical issue. The member seems to have his microphone in place. We will turn the volume up here and leave this to our technical folks.

We will keep going.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, Western Canadian Select is currently at $38 a barrel. For so long, the Conservatives have been using the pipeline to argue that it will get us a better price. When it comes to Trans Mountain, for example, they ignore the fact that 99% of that pipeline's current exports are going to California, so they assume that increased capacity will automatically mean that our American neighbours will pay a higher price.

What are the Conservatives proposing to do with President Biden's decision? The writing was on the wall. Is the member in favour of levelling trade sanctions against the new administration or taking some kind of action against the new president? I just want to hear a firm answer of what the Conservatives are prepared to do over this decision when the writing was so clearly on the wall.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the writing may have been on the wall, but to the member's question, we should have been supporting our oil and gas workers for the last five years, not the last five days.

It is a shame that a member from the NDP, who says the NDP is the party of working people, has not supported energy workers for five years. For him to stand here and ask that question and talk about the price point of oil right now is very interesting, as there are tens of thousands of people in my riding who do not have a job because of this cancellation and hundreds of people are now trying to figure out how they are going to pay their rent.

What we would have done as a government is supported our energy workers. We would not have embarrassed them for the last five years, nor added an ever-increasing carbon tax, passed Bill C-48, the tanker ban, and passed Bill C-69. We would have ensured that all of our allies knew that world-class energy is developed right here in Canada and would have been a promoter of that across the world.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to say that I listened carefully to the speech given by my colleague, who said that Canada has the best environmental standards for oil and gas extraction in the oil sands.

However, after doing some reading, I learned that, last May, the Alberta Energy Regulator suspended a number of environmental monitoring requirements for oil sands companies. Of course, it is saying that it did that because of COVID-19, but one has to wonder.

The companies are no longer required to test groundwater and surface water unless contamination occurs that could spread to the environment. What is more, these companies no longer have to look for methane leaks, even though it is a major greenhouse gas, nor do they even have to monitor birds and wildlife. They are no longer obligated to monitor or conduct research on wetlands, since such activities have been suspended until further notice. Water escaping from storm ponds no longer needs to be tested, and major cuts have also been made to air quality programs. Are those really the best standards in the world?

We also see that oil sands emissions have more than doubled since 2005 and more than quintupled since 1990, so there are four times more emissions. The Leader of the Opposition said that he wanted to comply with the Paris Agreement.

How is it logically possible to remove a carbon tax and continue to emit greenhouse gases from oil sands development—emissions that are rising dramatically, according to the data—and still respect the leader of the official opposition's commitment to the Paris Agreement?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, if the member wants to explain to his constituents why he believes we should continue to use Algerian and Venezuelan oil, he can. The tankers are coming up the St. Lawrence Seaway to drop that oil off. He may think that is more environmentally friendly than using the oil developed right here in Canada, refined in Canada, and building pipelines, which is the safest way to transport oil so we get it off our railways. If he wants to say to his constituents that he would rather use foreign oil than the oil developed here in Canada, that is his choice. I will never say that. I will stand up for our oil producers every day of the week in this chamber.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier today, it is always a privilege to address the House of Commons, whether we are doing it virtually from our homes or on the floor of the House of Commons.

It has been interesting to listen to the debate thus far. I must admit that when this issue came up this afternoon in the form of a request for an emergency debate, I thought it would be a very healthy debate, given the importance of the issue. I applaud your decision, Mr. Speaker, to allow this emergency debate to take place.

I have a few thoughts that I would like to share with members. Being from the Prairies, I do have a lot of opinions on commodities and our natural resources. I have recognized for many years how important commodities are. In fact, in the province of Manitoba, I have always articulated how wonderful it is to be rich in natural resources, relatively speaking. However, it is also critically important that we diversify our economy.

All in all, Manitoba has done a relatively good job of diversifying its economy. Maybe it does not get the same booms that some provinces, such as Alberta, have had previously, but we do not get a really strong bust, if I could put it that way. Through that diversity, Manitoba has managed quite well.

I do not want people to think of western Canada, in particular the prairie provinces, as a hinterland full of resources and that those resources have to be tapped into in order for us to move forward. In fact, we have good reason to believe that our prairie provinces will continue to grow and be prosperous. The natural resources and our commodities will no doubt play a critical role in the future development of our economy and society.

I do not question that whatsoever, and it is because of the people who make up our provinces and the diversification that is there today. It has increased significantly over the years. I am very proud of that. That is one of the reasons I was glad to hear about the establishment of a prairie diversification unit that would look at ways for us to continue to build upon that diversification, which is so critically important.

We hear a lot about energy workers and how important the energy sector is to Canada and our economy. There is no doubt that when we think of energy workers, we are not just talking about people in the province of Alberta. We need to recognize that we are talking about Canadians in virtually all regions of our country who are impacted by the Keystone decision of the current President of the United States. There is no doubt about that.

Having said that, we also recognize that when the Alberta economy was doing well, the contributions to equalization over the years were immense, second to no other province on a per-capita basis and even far beyond it for a vast number of the provinces. Alberta has been a major contributor to equalization, ensuring that in many ways we can provide the types of social programming we have.

When we talk about the importance of natural resources, in particular our energy, we should focus on the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. We could also look out east to Newfoundland and Labrador, where we have high concentrations of the type of energy that I believe there is a world demand for. We need to recognize that fact. There is a need and that need is very real.

It is interesting to hear some members make comments in regard to the quality of products, our environmental standards and the manner in which companies in Canada treat our workers. I would argue they are far better and exceed many other oil-producing countries.

It is important to recognize that, from the beginning, the Prime Minister and the cabinet have supported a process that would ultimately see Keystone move forward. I know that the Conservatives do not necessarily like that, but at the end of the day the government has supported that project.

It is interesting that what I have found over the years is that it depends on which party might be speaking. If it is a party such as the Conservatives on the right, they will criticize us for not doing enough and not building more pipelines. They ask why we care about the environment and say that we should just build those pipelines. This is an attitude that stems from the Conservative right.

Then we have my New Democrat friends. I suspect, possibly because of pressure from the Green Party, they have now abandoned, at the national level, the need for pipelines. The Green Party has said that pipelines are a no-go, and I think, because the Green Party has taken that position, a number of the New Democrat federal politicians feel somewhat uncomfortable. I say “federal” because it is important to realize that one of the staunchest advocates of additional pipelines was, in fact, the New Democratic Party in Alberta.

The New Democratic Party in Alberta played a critical role, not only in Keystone, but in other projects, and advocated for that development. The NDP at the national level has opposed Keystone and, no doubt, it has expressed, even in listening to the debate, some sort of victory. It is as if they are taking a victory lap because it appears that Keystone will not be moving forward because of the recent election south of the border.

I would say to both my colleagues on the right, the Conservatives, and my colleagues on the left that when we think of development of our natural resources we have to realize that we can, in fact, be sensitive to our environment and to our resource development at the same time. We can listen to the stakeholders and work with provincial premiers and indigenous leaders and ultimately develop plans of action that will, in fact, benefit Canada as a society. That has been clearly demonstrated.

What I have found, when we enter into this type of debate, is that the Conservatives seem to want to stand on a pedestal, and that it does not matter what the reality is, but that they want to use it as some sort of a stand to be critical of the federal government and bash Ottawa. It does not matter what is actually taking place. All they care about is bashing Ottawa on this issue. They have consistently done that. It is one of the things where I would say there is some comparison between the Bloc and the Conservative Party. Earlier today, for example, I asked a Bloc member about recognizing that Alberta and its wonderful natural resource has provided a great deal to Canadian society in all regions, including to the province of Quebec, but they tend to close their eyes and not recognize the importance of this particular issue.

I raised it by saying that it is much like we are concerned about our aerospace industry. Manitoba has a bit of an aerospace industry, and so does the province of Quebec, and other provinces do to a certain degree.

When our aerospace industry has been in troubled times, the government has been there in tangible ways to ensure that we can work with the local governments to try to protect the industry. Likewise in regard to our oil industry or the energy industry as a whole, we recognize that there is a need for the federal government to be involved. In fact, Trans Mountain was the first pipeline to actually bring some of our natural resources to the Pacific Ocean coastline and the province of British Columbia.

Compare what this government has done with the previous administration. I have no problem making that comparison at any time. I would suggest that we have done more for the province of Alberta than Stephen Harper did when he was prime minister and the Conservatives were in power for 10 years. That is the reality. Listening to Conservative member after Conservative member speak on this, someone would think that the reality is the opposite, which is just not the case. The numbers clearly show that.

Is there a Conservative speaker who could tell those following the debate how many miles of pipeline Stephen Harper built to the west coast? How many miles?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Four pipelines.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Colleagues will find that the answer to that is zero. That is the answer. It is not even an inch.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Not true.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what they might say about having gone over here, and then over there and getting some oil to the coast, they did not.

When it looked difficult for a pipeline to get to the Pacific, the federal government stepped up to the plate and acquired Trans Mountain, which the NDP premier supported, just like the NDP premier of British Columbia supported the LNG project. At the end of the day, when the NDP is in government, they tend to support Canadian interests. They tend to recognize the value of natural resources. It is only the federal NDP that seem to ignore that reality.

My Conservative friends, on the other hand, are in the field of saying that it does not matter what the Liberals do. They have 30-plus MPs in Alberta and a Conservative premier. All they are going to do is to slam Ottawa. In Manitoba when I was an MLA, we called it “fed-bashing”. It is easy to blame Ottawa for problems.

There is a lot of irony, I must say, in this. Think about it. The federal government took the initiative on Trans Mountain and spent several hundred million dollars to ensure that it went through. The Conservative premier of Alberta has spent hundreds of millions, going into the billions of dollars, on Keystone. Let us wait and see what happens there, but it is interesting how members of the Conservative opposition will criticize our actions on the Trans Mountain and say how bad we were to Albertans for doing it, but to what degree do they criticize Jason Kenney for his behaviour on Keystone? Some might suggest there is a bit of hypocrisy there.

As a government, in a relatively short period of time we have established a tangible process that gives certainty to the industry, a process that ensures there is indigenous involvement and consultations, a process that respects the environment. As a direct result, we are in a far greater position today to be able to see pipelines built and constructed.

Because of the actions we took years ago, we see thousands of jobs in Alberta and other jurisdictions that were created because of our initiatives. That is far greater than whatever Stephen Harper and the Conservatives did in their 10 years.

We have to be very careful with criticisms. I spent 20 years in opposition and only a few years on the government benches, so I understand what members have to do in opposition to try to get attention. With the whole idea of national unity and saying the same thing whether in one region or another region, there is only one political entity in the House of Commons that is doing that and that is our Prime Minister and the Liberal Party. We recognize that as a federation, all of us benefit as a society when we support each other in the different regions. When the members try to bash Ottawa, such as the member for the New Democratic Party in saying that Ottawa has abandoned Alberta, I ask for an example. Tell me something that another provincial jurisdiction is getting that Alberta is not getting and show me it in a tangible way.

I always hear the member for Lakeland talking about how Ottawa has failed. I have a big problem with that because I am from the Prairies. I lived in Alberta. When I was in the military, I was in Alberta and spent years in Saskatchewan. I was born and raised in good part in Winnipeg. That is where I was for the last 30-plus years since I left the military. I am from the Prairies and will stand up for the Prairies, but I do not have to feed into the types of lines that separatists love to hear. I did not bash the feds when I was in opposition either.

If the member for Lakeland truly believes what she was saying, I would love to hear what she was saying when Stephen Harper was the prime minister. Do the comparisons. Look at the numbers. Try to tell me that the Conservative government in 10 years invested more in infrastructure than the current government and current Prime Minister. It would not be true. We have invested more in the province of Alberta when it comes to infrastructure. When it comes to helping those who are in need in Alberta, when it comes to economic difficulties, we have stepped up and provided billions of dollars in support to Albertans, as we have done for all of the different regions.

I believe that we have to be fair in our reflections of reality and history. If we were to do that, I suspect there would be a lot less fed bashing and more talk about what we might be able to do.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary and government House leader for talking about Alberta's contribution to the federation through the billions of dollars that came from Alberta to feed the rest of Canada when Alberta was truly the economic engine over the past decades for the whole country.

The hon. member ended up listing evidence to explain to us how water was named water, which really does not do anything to help the people who lost their jobs, and there are thousands of them. I hope that the member understands, as I have been at the door talking to people in Alberta, what the suffering looks like and how pessimistic people are about the future because of the continuing war on the oil and gas sector that was started by the Liberal government for the last five years and is continuing now from south of the border, which is very devastating news.

As the member speaks on behalf of his government, my question is this: What is this government going to do to support these people who are now out of a job and looking for a way to find a proper lifestyle and continue it?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the government will continue with many of the actions it has taken over the years to date. We continue to see literally hundreds if not thousands of jobs being created with, for example, Trans Mountain, which is a very important pipeline that is being developed today. We continue to support Albertans and in particular small businesses as they diversify the economy, which is absolutely critical.

My friend talked about some of the comments I made at the very beginning of my speech. The health care system that we have in the province of Manitoba would not be as good as it is if it were not for those equalization payments. Many Manitobans and people from Saskatchewan moved to Alberta in order to better their lives and ultimately contribute to the development of our country. These are the types of things that we should be talking more about.

As a nation, we work together, which makes a better nation, and the federal government will continue to support Alberta, as it has been doing for the last five years.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons for his speech. It is a pleasure to see him again and to hear his eloquent words.

What I like about him is that he answers questions clearly, unlike his colleagues. I asked them a very simple question at the beginning of this debate, and now I would like to ask him that same question. I know he will give me an answer. I am sure he will not give us the runaround and try to distract us.

In 2014-15, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, who is now the Minister of Canadian Heritage, sent out a number of jubilant tweets about all the obstacles Keystone XL would run into. Now government members are saying how disappointed they are in the Biden administration's decision. I would like my colleague to tell me whether the government and cabinet are happy or disappointed about this situation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, the Government of Canada supported Keystone. Obviously we recognized, as NDP premiers and Conservatives did, the value of Keystone moving forward. With the election south of us, President Biden made a commitment, and from his point of view, he is fulfilling that commitment. It does not mean that the Government of Canada has reversed its position. We still understand the importance of this pipeline for all of Canada, not just Alberta. To that end, nothing has changed, but we will continue to work with the president in dealing with a wide spectrum of issues, particularly the issue of trade. We should think of the impact that also has on Canadians in all regions of our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, energy workers sitting at home watching did not want to hear a partisan speech. I can tell the member directly that nobody is celebrating right now when workers are out of work in Alberta. What we are not talking enough about is the international embarrassment that is happening right now when other countries are making decisions to bring Canada in line because we are failing to do our part in tackling climate change, whether it be the U.S. on this decision or Norway with its sovereign wealth fund.

Right now, we need to clean up is Jason Kenney's failed gamble, and to fix things we need to take real action on climate change. There are opportunity costs for us in pointing fingers like this. We need to get people back to work and invest in clean energy. Workers in Alberta right now want to hear that the federal government is going to step in and put people back to work with clean energy, jobs that are going to bring them into the future, and not another failed plan or another argument over failed pipelines.

I want to hear from the member if he is going to go back to his cabinet and his party and help rescue those workers in Alberta that really have been abandoned by a failed mistake by their premier. Are Liberals going to take real action on climate change so that more countries are not taking action on Canada, because that is what we should expect if we do not take real action on issues related to climate change?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in one of the speeches earlier a Conservative member was very critical of our price on pollution. That was a very progressive policy measure by this government. It is ensuring that across all regions of Canada, there will be a price on pollution. One only needs to look at the throne speech that was presented by the Prime Minister back in September. If they want to get a good sense of the many green initiatives, the many ways in which we are going to be there for Albertans in terms of unemployed people becoming more employable through skill set enhancement via training programs, there are a litany of programs that are going to be there and are there today to support Albertans, as they are there for all Canadians.

We will continue to look at interesting initiatives that are going to continue to build upon a strong environmental plan. Unlike the NDP, we do recognize that we can work with the environment and the economy to ensure that as a society, we continue to move forward and meet the expectations and standards that Canadians have.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our colleague spoke very passionately and eloquently about national unity in the context of this debate. He talked about the fact, and it is a fact, that the west is tremendously important in Canada and remains tremendously important to this government.

The member is someone who grew up in the Prairies. He is someone who represents Manitobans in the House of Commons. Could he emphasize that or talk about it further? It was an issue that I thought really stood out, and it is something that needs to be underlined when we continue to hear colleagues in the opposition try to divide Canadians on this issue.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. One of the most encouraging things for me when I went to Ottawa, when I was first elected in 2010 in a by-election, was the amount of support for western Canada coming from the national Liberal caucus. I was very impressed by it. Those were the days when we were in opposition.

When we became government, we did more than talk about it. There are so many policy initiatives that have been taken to enhance and to assist in diversifying and supporting the Prairies and British Columbia and northern Canada. We have invested more real dollars out west than the former Conservative government did in 10 years.

This is because we believe in our infrastructure—

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague, the member for Foothills.

This is an incredibly sombre debate to be entering into. It is one of those weeks that as an elected official we hope we never encounter. Let me describe that.

Last Tuesday it was revealed, through a leak from the White House, that Keystone XL would be axed with the stroke of a pen by the new U.S. President. I started to hear from constituents. Canadians need to understand that about 1,000 of those layoffs that took place last Wednesday took place in Battle River—Crowfoot.

As I talked to pipefitters, welders, heavy equipment operators and labourers who worked directly on that pipeline, uncertainty ruled the day. In many cases, it was not just uncertainty in terms of their immediate future. The Keystone project had been a godsend for them after half a decade of uncertainty. Talking to those directly affected was heartbreaking, to say the least.

Then I talked to a single mom who, because of an uptick in the economic fortunes of the region, saw the ability to send her kids to piano lessons for the first time in a long time. Once again, that was called into question.

I talked to seniors who, in some cases, for the first time in years did not have to worry about whether to pay the power bill or put groceries in the fridge, because a Keystone XL employee was boarding in their house.

Hotels that were empty, especially in an industry devastated by COVID, finally had people staying in them. Grocery stores, tire shops, small business owners saw there was once again a glimmer of hope in the midst of very challenging times.

On a number of occasions I have talked about the energy industry, and will continue to boast about our world-class energy industry. However, I want to start my speech that way because this is not simply an issue of a pipeline. This is a very human issue that has a particular impact in my constituency where there is now literally 200 kilometres of pipe. For some context, the Alberta side of this project is entirely located within my constituency. The genesis of the pipeline is at Hardisty. It is an incredible place. I would invite members, especially those critical of the industry we are talking about today, to come to Hardisty, Alberta to see the world-class industry in action. That is where the pipeline starts.

It makes its way southeast through my constituency, near my hometown, where my family still farms, all the way to the Saskatchewan border, where it was meant to continue to the United States. There are massive human costs to the cancellation of this project, and I have outlined a few of those today.

I listened carefully to the debate. The Liberal member and parliamentary secretary talked about how he thought somehow we were playing politics with this issue. I hope I have started to humanize this very real issue and show how it is not politics; it is about the livelihood of Canadians.

Starting last May, the Prime Minister and his Liberal government had the opportunity, knowing that there was an American election under way, to engage with American counterparts, putting politics aside, to stand up for what was in the best interests of Canada.

I find it interesting that the Minister of Natural Resources and other Liberals today have somehow been making the case that this is what they have been doing. A phone call to the President admitting defeat does not count as standing up for an industry or standing up for those thousands of jobs that were lost last week. It is incredibly troubling.

Over the last number of months, during an election in the United States, the transition that took place, leading up to the swearing in of the new administration this past week, the government should have been fighting for Canadians. I am not asking for anything special. I am acknowledging the fact that the Liberals failed to do just that.

The number of conversations I have had in this last week bring a heartbreaking reality to light. The government has failed. I have heard a lot of discussion today about the oil industry and how it is time to move on. In fact, a member from the Bloc said that this project was doomed to fail. Eleven months ago when we were debating the Teck Frontier project, which was also cancelled, we heard similar language.

The environmental activists green left in the country, of which there are many in the Liberal Party unfortunately, are conflating the volatility of market investment with government policy that is systematically bent on destroying an industry, one of the legacy industries in my constituency. It is a national shame that this is the case.

I can assure members that there is a business case for these projects: Teck Frontier, hundreds of millions dollars spent in the application process; hundreds of millions of dollars spent by TC Energy in the Keystone XL. Time and time again, other projects have been cancelled. Hundreds of millions of dollars were written off for energy east. That is not because a business case did not exist. That is because the Liberal government has made it impossible for that investment to succeed. It is a national tragedy.

I want to talk about something that is very real. As I mentioned earlier, the previous Liberal speaker mentioned how somehow Conservatives from Alberta, from the west, were playing politics with the idea of separation. I am a proud Canadian through and through. What breaks my heart is that multi-generational Canadians come to me and they have given up on Canada. Many more say that they are ready to give up on Canada. That is the legacy of both the Prime Minister and his father. This should not be a political issue. It is the sad reality of the circumstances we face.

The actions of the government are sowing the seeds of division in the country, dividing different segments. It is not just east versus west although that is certainly one of the most flagrant examples. It is rural versus urban, north versus south, rich versus poor. The government has been incredibly effective at dividing Canadians, and that is a shame. It should be the first priority of any government to be a leader to unite for the best interests of all. Unfortunately, we have seen absolutely the opposite of that.

For those people who are now facing uncertainty in their personal lives, not sure how to pay the next rent, the next grocery bill, those who will not be able to get their kids in piano lessons, for those who have given up on Canada as a federation, I implore members opposite to take note of the seeds of division that have been sowed.

When it comes to what needs to be done, we need a pipeline. I know my other colleagues have articulated very well the reasons for that, but we need a pipeline because it is what is best for Canada.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member said that there was a business case for this pipeline, but Canada's energy regulator, which is not among the environmental activists about whom the member was talking, has said that if we are serious about climate change, if we take climate action and if we are serious about net zero by 2050, there is no need for this pipeline.

Earlier today in his statement, the member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington, who recently got kicked out of the Conservative Party, said that net-zero legislation was not viable and urged Conservatives to vote against any net-zero legislation.

Does the member agree that net-zero legislation is unnecessary and against Alberta? Will the member be voting against Bill C-12?