Debates of March 10th, 2021

Health

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is comparing apples to oranges. The Constitution of Australia and the Constitution of Canada are completely different. We are working within our constitutional framework, and it is disappointing to see the Green Party suggest that there are magic solutions to real constitutional problems.

This government has worked steadfastly with premiers and the provincial governments. The vaccines are rolling out at an enormous rate, and all Canadians should have access to vaccines by the end of September.

Natural Resources

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, when I chose to run as a candidate for Parliament, a decision that began three years ago, the number one issue facing this country was our growing inability to get infrastructure built, particularly pipelines for our country's valuable resources. Western Canadians were facing a misguided federal government that believed it could continue to speak out of both sides of its mouth on pipelines.

Shortly after being elected in 2015, the government initiated a northwest coast Canadian oil export ban, causing the closure of a fully licensed pipeline, northern gateway. Energy east was presented with more hurdles to complete connectivity of our Canadian resources to eastern Canadian refineries. Seeing the writing on the wall, the proponent withdrew the proposal.

Kinder Morgan, a U.S. pipeline company that had operated safely in Canada for over 60 years, saw the same outcome with its TMX expansion. Luckily for the company, it had an international legal agreement backing it, which would have cost the Canadian government billions of dollars in a NAFTA challenge, so the Government of Canada bought the existing pipeline, plus the expansion, from Kinder Morgan.

What have Canadians received from the sale? They have received an elongated construction timeline and costs being allocated, sometimes opportunistically, to add billions to its cost base. Fortunately, as determined by all financial analyses, including that of the Parliamentary Budget Office, it still makes economic sense on its own, to say nothing of the billions of dollars of value it will bring Canadians in tax revenue and reduced differentials.

Therefore, when I hear the Minister of Natural Resources claim that his government is responsible for the jobs associated with this pipeline, I roll my eyes and ask myself who is responsible for the minister's false self-congratulations. The government loves its storytellers, even when the stories are complete fiction.

Now we will fast forward. Keystone XL has been cancelled by the whims of a new U.S. administration, mid-build, without so much as a whimper from the government. Enbridge's Line 5 is being threatened with closure by a U.S. state acting on false motives and in defiance of a pipeline treaty between our two nations that is more than 40 years old. Still, the government has not raised alarms at the highest level signalling that this is unacceptable between two modern, successful trading nations. Once again, the government is feigning support but not acting decisively.

This is a fundamental piece of Canadian infrastructure and the government needs to fulfill its international relations role and step up right now. There is more danger on the horizon. Activists are lobbying against Enbridge Line 3, our main artery of oil flow. Pipelines leading to the northwest coast to get Canadian natural gas to international markets meet unforeseen hurdles, some of which are partially funded by the government.

West coast LNG is our future, no doubt about it. It means reduced carbon emissions for countries that are currently burning vast amounts of coal for power. Our responsibility is to provide them a more environmentally friendly option, because we can and because we are good at it. One such facility is under construction. One other is waiting for clarity from the government that it actually believes in environmental solutions beyond virtue signalling. This country, our pipeline industry and our future require clarity. I challenge the government to actually provide that clarity.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to address this very important issue.

From day one, the government has made it a top priority to open domestic and international markets to our resources. Our goal has been to help create well-paid high-skills jobs in our energy sector. That remains a priority to this day.

Line 3 is an important part of the infrastructure that will strengthen the integration of Canada-U.S. energy relations and improve environmental performance by increasing the participation of indigenous peoples and generating economic spinoffs on both sides of the border from coast to coast.

To honour our commitment to reconciliation, Canada is working closely with the Line 3 Indigenous Advisory and Monitoring Committee. This initiative brings together representatives of indigenous groups, the government and the regulatory body to ensure indigenous oversight of the project. We have consistently stated that working with indigenous peoples to find solutions will produce better economic, social and environmental outcomes.

Enbridge said that 20% of the Canadian workforce working on replacing Line 3 was indigenous. We will keep working with indigenous communities and organizations and with our North American partners to strengthen collaboration on the environmental and energy issues facing our continent.

The Line 3 project has generated thousands of full-time jobs during its construction, replacing a 50-year-old pipeline with a new and safer one. This improves the integrity of the pipeline network, reduces the transportation of oil by rail and on public roads, and increases environmental safety.

The Line 3 project is an excellent example of what our government means when we say that the environment and the economy go hand in hand. Energy security and ensuring that everyone has safe, reliable and affordable access to the fuel they need is of great importance to our government.

The Line 3 project is a part of this. That is why we continue to do the hard work necessary to secure reliable supply chains, including by building pipeline capacity to get our resources to both domestic and international markets, ensuring that this sector continues to be a source of good middle-class jobs for Canadians.

Once fully completed in the U.S., Line 3 will transport 760,000 barrels per day, representing more than 370,000 barrels in additional capacity, and further support workers in Canada's petroleum sector.

Furthermore, our government's climate plan and robust regulatory regime guarantee that the Canadian products transported in this pipeline are manufactured in accordance with some of the strictest environmental standards in the world. We still believe that the Line 3 replacement is a worthwhile project to meet present and future needs. It will help improve environmental performance, maximize indigenous participation and generate economic spinoffs on both sides of the border. We will continue to vigorously defend this project at every opportunity.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the comments of my colleague, the parliamentary secretary.

He talked about indigenous participation. Let me challenge him on the indigenous participation that was part of Keystone XL and the five native groups in Saskatchewan and Alberta that were participating in that new project to get Canadian oil to markets in the United States, which would have been more environmentally friendly, replacing the type of oil that is consumed in the United States right now.

The entire pipeline was net zero, as far as emissions go, because of the environmental benefits received. It was powered by alternative energy.

However, with regard to ESG, the government is following large Canadian industries like pipelines, as far as their standards go. Therefore, industry is showing the Canadian government where this goes, and the government is a fast follower on this.

We need to integrate with the United States. When we are not integrating well, we need to call it out and say what it is. Our standards are much higher, and let us make sure they get built.

I will challenge the parliamentary secretary again because he refers to Line 3. Line 3, of course, is already built on the Canadian side. Show the Americans—

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

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his passion on this issue, his comments and his knowledge that he is sharing with us here and at the natural resources committee.

As the member knows, the Line 3 replacement project is one of North America's largest infrastructure programs and supports North American energy independence. More than that, the new Line 3 will comprise the newest and most advanced pipeline technology.

Our government has made getting our resources to market safely and responsibly a top priority because of our good, well-paying goods in our energy sector.

As I have said, we will continue to vigorously defend Line 3 at every opportunity.

The project will help improve environmental performance, maximize indigenous participation and generate economic spinoffs on both sides of the border.

It will provide much-needed capacity to support Canadian crude oil production, and U.S. and Canadian refinery demand. It will generate thousands of full-time jobs during its construction.

Airline Industry

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, on February 19, in question period, I asked the Minister of Transport the following:

Madam Speaker, the minister is correct. He did appear yesterday at committee. Unfortunately, he got his facts wrong again about purchasing tickets to sun destinations. The minister said that it takes multiple tickets for an American carrier to take a Canadian to a sun destination, when in fact it only takes a single ticket. When will the minister get his facts straight, and when will he fix this problem?

I received the following response:

Madam Speaker, I will argue that she needs to get her facts straight. I said “multiple trips”.

—meaning not multiple tickets—

Let me be very clear to all Canadians. We are asking all Canadians to suspend discretionary and vacation travel.

I did remember very clearly what the minister said the day before at committee, and I attempted to make a point of order. Unfortunately, I did not have the text in front of me, but I do have it here it today. This is from the record at committee on February 18, when the Minister of Transport appeared.

My question for the Minister of Transport at committee on February 18 was this:

My colleague mentioned previously that when the pandemic is over, or finally, we hope, the government is successful in its vaccination efforts or perhaps in utilizing the tools of vaccines and rapid testing, which we have been encouraging the government to do for so long, even then, when the airline sector opens again, there will have been an incredible loss of market share over this time. I've mentioned this in the House. We see it, for example, with the implementation of the travel restrictions, whereby American carriers can still fly Canadians to sun destinations.

Will this plan include a strategy for dealing with the loss of market share, which will take years for the Canadian airline sector to recover?

The Minister of Transport responded with the following:

Let me just correct the record. No American airlines can take Canadians to a sun destination. If they do, then those Canadians are buying multiple tickets to get to the sun destination. There are no direct flights between Canada and sun destinations.

Having said that, the short answer to her question is yes. We are committed to working with the airline sector and making sure that they are strong and ready for a recovery post-COVID.

I can confirm, because it is in the record, that the Minister of Transport did say “multiple tickets”. I will back this up with my efforts on February 19 following question period. Before I attempted to make this point of order, I went onto the Expedia website and was able, through an American carrier, to have the option of purchasing with a single ticket a trip from YVR, which of course we know is Vancouver, to Puerto Vallarta, one of my favourite sun destinations, PVR, with only a single 31-minute stop in Seattle.

I would like to set the record straight with this information. I am expressing my sincere disappointment that there is still no plan for the airline sector after all of this time and, of course, my extreme disappointment that the government did not support our opposition day motion, which included support for airline workers and the airline sector.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, the measures implemented by this government starting on February 22 are helping to curb discretionary and vacation travel during a period when a very significant number of Canadians traditionally travel to sun destinations, as the hon. member herself mentioned, for example in weeks such as March break. The decision to impose these measures was not taken lightly. We understand the impact on Canadian travellers and the Canadian industry.

However, despite promising news regarding vaccines for COVID-19, it is critical to remember that we remain in the midst of a pandemic, that new variants of the virus are circulating, and that our primary responsibility is to protect the health and safety of Canadians. It would have been irresponsible for us to treat this as a normal winter travel season and hope for the best. I can report that between the first week of January of this year and the first week of March, passengers arriving into Canada were down very significantly, with the most pronounced decrease in arrivals coming from traditional sun destinations in Mexico and the Caribbean, where the decrease stood at around 90%.

I do not suggest this is cause for celebration, nor do I wish to give the impression that air travel is bad or unsafe. On the contrary: through a multilayered approach, the government and industry have worked hard to put in place a number of measures to ensure that air travel is safe. These include the wearing of masks, health and temperature checks, additional sanitization measures in airports and onboard aircraft for all flights, and the need to show negative COVID-19 tests within 72 hours of getting on board an international flight to Canada. International air travel to and from Canada can still take place, and we recognize that not all travel is discretionary.

Furthermore, the measures this government has imposed do not stop Canadians from travelling for discretionary purposes. I recognize that although Canadian airlines have voluntarily suspended service to sun destinations, it is still possible to travel between Canada and those destinations on connecting flights via the United States, for example. I will repeat that the number of passengers choosing to travel to sun destinations is very small, and they will be subject to the testing and quarantine measures that we have imposed on their return.

In summary, this government is continuing to do what is necessary to protect the health and well-being of Canadians.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary mentioned the airlines voluntarily giving up these sun destinations. I wish that the government would voluntarily provide a plan for this sector after one year. We hoped for it in December, when Reuters reported that it was coming. We hoped for it two weeks ago, when it was reported in The Globe and Mail that it was imminent. Today the government had an opportunity, in the absence of a plan, to support the airline sector and workers by simply voting for the opposition day motion. That would show support for the airline sector and the airline workers. However, the government did not choose to do this.

There has been no plan for a year, but in the small action today of supporting this motion, the government could have supported the airline sector. It did not.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows the airline industry has been able to access billions of dollars in relief from the Government of Canada, and we are engaged in negotiations, as the former minister and the current minister have said, to help the airline industry, but it has to be on good terms that Canadians accept. These will include issuing refunds, maintaining regional routes and protecting the Canadian aerospace industry. We look forward to something very soon, and hope to have good news for the House in the very near future.

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

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 8:15 p.m.)