Candice Bergen

[Natural Resources, February 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today, and I hope to get some clearer answers on a question that I asked in early February.

When the Liberals were initially elected, they said during their platform and then immediately afterward that they were going to be making changes to the National Energy Board approval process. However, they recognized quickly that there was a lot of clarity needed. Then the government announced what it called transition steps. It made that announcement, I believe in late January.

Early in February, in the transition steps that the government announced, there were five guiding principles as well as ministerial representation. It became clear within the first week that what the Liberals had intended to make a more clear process got even more confusing for proponents.

I directed my question to the Minister of Natural Resources. However, it was the Minister of Environment and Climate Change who answered and did not provide a very clear answer, not only to clearing up the transition process but to recognizing that by making it more cloudy it was creating two problems. There was no further clarity as far as what pipeline proponents and other energy infrastructure proponents would need to do. That then sent a signal to investors, potential money that would be invested in Canada, that there was uncertainty. When investors are looking around the world, they usually have a very short time and window to place that money. If Canada does not look like a place where they can invest and have certainty, they put their money elsewhere.

Almost a month ago, I asked the minister for clarity on the five principles. To date, we have not seen any clarity. We are not sure, and proponents are not sure, when it comes, for example, to upstream GHG measurements—which will now be included in the assessment—what the number is that either cabinet will be looking for, or the assessment itself will deem to be appropriate. Nobody knows that.

The Department of Environment and Climate Change is doing the assessment, but the proponents are not told the goal that they need to get to in order for cabinet to say it is an acceptable or unacceptable GHG limit. That is one of the answers that I know we are looking for clarity on, and I know proponents are also looking for clarity.

Again, I said there were five principles that were announced. Of those five principles, are they all weighted the same? For example, is community engagement weighted the same as indigenous peoples meaningful consultation? Will GHG upstream emissions be given more weight? Of the five principles, are they weighted differently?

As members can see, there is a lot of confusion. Proponents are saying that there is no clarity. It is causing a lot of problems in terms of jobs and job creators in the natural resources sector, not just oil and gas. We are looking for some clarity on that.

[Natural Resources, February 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, how tone deaf can the government be? A carbon tax puts Canada at a huge competitive disadvantage. Investors are leaving Canada in droves because of the Liberals' confusing regulatory system. If job creators see a carbon tax, they are going to see that as Canada is closed for business.

Is there a leader in the government who will be like the premier of Saskatchewan who wants Canada competitive and wants to see Canada open for business? Or under the Liberals, is Canada closed for business?

[Natural Resources, February 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, with oil prices at an all-time low, people in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and New Brunswick are desperate and out of work. They are looking for a glimmer of hope.

A job-killing carbon tax is the absolute last thing they need, a tax that would put a nail in the coffin of those people who work in the oil patch.

Will the Minister of Natural Resources stand up to his cabinet colleagues? Would he stand up for jobs in Canada? Would he say no to a carbon tax and yes to Canadian jobs for the sake of the natural resources sector?

[Natural Resources, February 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have a difficult time supporting Canadian oil and gas. It is like they believe Canadian oil and gas is bad and the jobs connected with them are bad.

Can the minister stand up today and agree with what millions of Canadians believe and what the evidence shows, that Canadian oil is responsibly extracted and Canadian pipelines are the safest in the world?

[Natural Resources, February 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians want to buy and use Canadian oil, and that is because they support the over 450,000 jobs that the Canadian energy sector brings.

Folks in New Brunswick and Quebec are offended that foreign oil is being given better treatment than Canadian oil. Canadian oil is extracted responsibly and it is transported responsibly.

When will the government start to support the Canadian energy sector and the jobs it brings rather than undermining it, creating roadblocks, and giving foreign oil special treatment?

[Natural Resources, February 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, that is no answer, and the Liberal government continues to put roadblocks in the way of Canadian oil and the kinds of jobs that pay the mortgages of Canadians.

Canadian oil is extracted responsibly, and environmental protection is at the forefront of the Canadian energy industry. Meanwhile, the Liberals welcome greenhouse-intensive oil from countries like Saudi Arabia, where women have virtually no rights and dissidents are executed.

When will the government be a champion for responsibly extracted and transported Canadian oil?

[Natural Resources, February 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister of Natural Resources if there were a double standard when it came to greenhouse gas emissions: one for Canadian oil and jobs, and one for Saudi Arabian oil coming into Canada. The minister completely ignored the question, and so I will give him a chance to answer it today.

The Liberals unfortunately are saying no to only Canadian oil and pipelines. I am wondering if the minister thinks that foreign oil extracted from the ground and shipped to Canada is done so using solar power and hemp-woven ships.

[Natural Resources, February 16th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the government is absolutely politicizing a process, and, in the midst of it, Liberals are laughing while tens of thousands of jobs are being lost in Alberta, New Brunswick, and across the country.

We also know that without energy east, Canadian refineries are forced to import foreign oil. Can the minister tell us if he is looking at what the upstream emissions are for the oil shipped to New Brunswick from Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, or is there one standard for Canadian oil and no standard for foreign oil?

[Natural Resources, February 16th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, recently in Calgary, the Minister of Natural Resources actually said that decisions on pipelines like energy east would be political decisions made by cabinet in the same way that budget decisions are made. That is a little scary in and of itself. So much for the process and so much for the Canadian regulator.

There are thousands of Canadians out of work who want to work on projects like energy east. Exactly what is the criteria that the Prime Minister and cabinet will be using to make these political decisions on pipelines?

[Natural Resources, February 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, what Mr. Beatty said in response to that plan was when global businesses sit down and decide where to invest, the uncertainty and overly politicized nature of Canada's environmental regulatory process is a strike against us. It is becoming clear that the government has put this process in place so that it can rubber-stamp a “no” on good energy projects. Why else would Liberals continue to torpedo Canadian jobs?