Garnett Genuis

[Business of Supply, June 1st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak on a subject that is particularly important in my own constituency of Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, the issues around pipeline construction.

I want to start with some context about how pipelines are built. Some members may know this already; some, unfortunately, may not. It is important that we start with an understanding of the context.

First, pipeline projects are proposed by the private sector. Already some people have made claims about the previous government not building pipelines to tidewater, and so forth. There needs to be an understanding that pipelines are proposed and then, if approved, built by the private sector, and it is up to the government to decide to approve or not approve pipelines for which there have been applications. That is one important point.

The second point is that after a project is proposed, there is a consultation process through the independent National Energy Board. The National Energy Board hears from different people in the community and from experts, considers the evidence, and weighs the facts of the situation. Then it comes forward with a recommendation to the government. Ultimately it is the cabinet's call, but in my view, it virtually always makes sense for the cabinet to approve projects that have been approved by the NEB. The NEB is, after all, the expert. It hears and weighs the evidence and then presents a recommendation.

Finally, it is important, as we think about how pipelines are built, to understand that these are clearly and squarely within federal jurisdiction. There was much discussion and public discourse about what particular provincial leaders and even mayors might think about pipelines. Of course, it is quite legitimate for these people to have opinions about where a pipeline should or should not go, and they are welcome to express that opinion, but we do not live in a country where different jurisdictions can decide what infrastructure goes into and out of their province. These are not countries; these are provinces governed by a Constitution that defines what is and is not in their jurisdictions. It is the federal government's responsibility to consider and rule on these applications, hopefully to listen to the NEB, and to do so in a way that reflects the best science and information.

That is the context through which we should view a discussion of the process of pipeline approval.

I am very proud to remind members that the previous Conservative government built four pipelines and approved a fifth. These were the applications that were brought from the private sector during the Conservatives' time in government. Of course, we were very supportive of other applications. We were very supportive of energy east and Trans Mountain, but obviously there is a process these projects have to go through. While we are supportive of pipelines, we are also supportive and respectful of that process.

Conservatives also, though, reformed the consultation process. We made the case, and I think we were right to do so, that the consultation process for any development project should not be unlimited. People with a particular political perspective who are never going to change their minds should not be able to do everything possible to drag out for years, even decades, good projects that should be discussed, considered, and ultimately decided upon. If the decision is not to proceed, okay; if the decision is to proceed, okay.

A consultation process should be reasonably time-limited, should leave those who have an interest in the process, who are affected, as well as experts, the opportunity to present information, but that process of deliberation should lead to a conclusion.

This was a problem we had in the past with certain projects in Canada. That process of deliberation was not designed to allow for a reasonably timely conclusion, so we made changes to ensure that there was a full consultation where experts and affected people were heard but that ultimately led to, on the positive or on the negative, a conclusion that would allow some degree of certainty for the project proponents as well as for the communities.

Conservatives built the Alberta Clipper energy project, which carries 450,000 barrels per day; the TransCanada Keystone, which carries 435,000 barrels per day; the Kinder Morgan anchor loop, which increased capacity by 40,000 barrels per day; and the Enbridge Line 9B reversal, which carries 300,000 barrels per day.

I am very proud of those accomplishments, and of course we approved the northern gateway project. That is the record of the previous Conservative government with respect to pipelines: respecting the process, respecting expertise, and recognizing the value of the energy sector and the need to move forward.

What happened when this new Liberal government took power? The Liberals made certain changes that are very clearly bad for independent processes and bad for the energy sector. For example, they emphasized that they would be willing to reject projects that had been approved through the National Energy Board. They would not provide the certainty that after independent expert review, they would approve projects that were, through that process, found to be in the best interests of Canada.

What is striking is that members in the Liberal Party frequently talk about listening to the science and about evidence-based decision-making, but they have actually been very clear that their decisions with respect to pipelines will not be constrained by the facts and the evidence. They specifically said that. They said they will not be limited by the decisions of an independent process, but that instead cabinet may well choose to reject projects that are demonstrably in the best interests of the country.

That is what they said with respect to projects such as energy east, which is currently going through the process, but they have already done that with respect to the northern gateway pipeline. This was a pipeline that went through the process. It was a pipeline that was approved by the NEB with conditions, and then approved by the previous Conservative government with conditions, and then the government decided that it could not go ahead.

The Liberals have also gone further. They have legislation coming forward now that would exclude tanker traffic in northern B.C. I am very clearly in favour of tankers, because that is how oil gets from place to place. People here in this House in some corners talk about tankers as if they are a terrible thing, and frankly, they are living a little bit outside reality if they think that we should live in a world without tankers.

Not only am I pro-tankers, but I am particularly in favour of Canadian tankers, because off the coast of B.C. there are tankers from other countries, tankers coming from Alaska, and there is every indication that we will see expanded development and expanded tanker traffic from Alaska, and if there is a spill, unfortunately, it is not as if the Canadian coast would be immune.

Instead of saying that we will not have any part of it and leaving the opportunities for energy development in the Asia-Pacific for other countries, let us instead encourage Canadian energy development while putting the necessary safety regulations in place to protect ourselves.

The government has taken steps that are of great concern to our energy sector, and now we are having a debate on the Trans Mountain pipeline, a pipeline that the government has uniquely decided to approve. It is important to note that this pipeline went through the same process as the northern gateway pipeline and that the government has made an arbitrary decision, based on its analysis of the politics of the day, to approve one pipeline and not the other.

Meanwhile, the politics of the day have changed. There is now a new provincial government in B.C.—I should not say that. There is a proposal for a coalition of a number of parties that did not get the largest number of seats in the election. That is what seems to be a possibility.

It is important that the government stand firm on Trans Mountain, of course, and government members have said they will, but it is also important that they develop some coherence in their approach to pipelines.

Our approach was coherent. It was based on evidence. It was based on listening to the NEB. It was based on a fair process that understood how pipelines were built. The government's approach is more arbitrary, which puts it in a much weaker position when it comes to defending pipelines across the board.

On the issue of pipelines in general, we believe it is important to address climate change, and to do so mainly through a discussion of consumption. That is how we reduce emissions: we reduce the amount of consumption. In the meantime, we have to use energy, and besides energy, we use manufactured petroleum products, which include things like election signs—even NDP election signs come from petroleum products—and we all fly in airplanes.

In the meantime, while we are still using energy resources, it makes no sense to try to limit the transportation of supply. Let us look for efficiencies that allow us to reduce demand, but supply and the transportation that facilitates supply are important while we are still using energy resources.

The government needs to do better in supporting vital energy transportation products that are important for our national economy.

[Business of Supply, June 1st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question for my colleague. He talked about evidence-based decision-making. The government's process for pipeline approvals is, by definition, not evidence based, because it allows cabinet to overrule decisions of the independent NEB. The NEB's job is to review the evidence and come forward with a recommendation.

However, based on energy east, the government has said it will not necessarily approve that project, even if the NEB finds that in fact evidence points to approval.

If the member is in favour of evidence-based decision-making, I wonder why he thinks politicians, responding to non-scientific, purely political forces, should be overruling decisions made based on evidence by the independent NEB, and why the government did that with respect to the northern gateway pipeline.

[Criminal Code, May 31st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, all of us in the House appreciate the importance of moving forward with legislative initiatives that will protect people on the roads and are seized with this problem of how many people are killed, injured, or otherwise affected by drunk driving.

A private member's bill was put forward which was, in my judgment, very similar to many of the provisions that are put forward in this bill. The government has talked about the importance of moving quickly, as well as the challenges of pushing through government legislation, and yet a private member's bill, Bill C-226, came from a Conservative member and, ultimately, the government voted not to proceed with it.

I honestly cannot remember if the member was here for that vote, but in any event, it is likely that he and all of his colleagues voted to kill that bill. I would like to hear from the member why they voted that way and also what substantive differences he sees between Bill C-226 and the bill we are discussing today.

[Extension of Sitting Hours, May 30th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I have a serious question for the member. He knows, I think, that the government tried to make unilateral changes to the Standing Orders through the procedure and House affairs committee. Of greatest concern to us was the fact that they wanted to make time allocation on legislation automatic. The government would, through so-called programming, automatically allocate time in advance. We said that would be fundamentally injurious to a democratic institution. Yes, we used every single tool available to us to fight against the designs of the government, including dilatory motions, and we were right to do so. There was a groundswell of public support from Canadians, which was in part driven by the tactics we used in the House. Yes, there were dilatory motions, and we were right to use them, because that brought this issue to the fore.

We successfully forced the government to back down from its anti-democratic designs. We can be very proud, and the interim leader deserves a lot of credit for the incredible work she did and that all of us did on that issue. We saved the House from the direction the government wanted to go.

Now the member wants to list those dilatory motions. I am very proud of what we did there. Will the member acknowledge that the government was wrong to try to unilaterally ram through these changes? He knows that as soon as they backed down and agreed with the opposition position, all of those tactics stopped.

[Extension of Sitting Hours, May 30th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the minister says that the Liberals need extra time to keep their promises. They have already broken so many. I think they could follow their promises if they actually proposed legislation that accorded with them. One of the bills the Liberals want to rush through is actually a bill to increase the pay of cabinet ministers, and they are doing it under the guise of gender equality.

I asked the minister a question earlier this week, and she did not answer. I want to ask it again. Under Bill C-24, are junior ministers, who that minister says are equal, empowered to bring memorandums to cabinet, yes or no.

[Criminal Code, May 29th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize the member's persistence in raising issues around his private member's bill. I do admire that. Clearly it is a cause that is very important to him and important to his constituency.

I want to ask his opinion about this issue of consultation around municipal governments. It is interesting that in the government's marijuana legislation there is no provision for municipalities to be informed or engaged around who is involved in home grow. There will be people growing marijuana at home and the government does not have a mechanism by which municipalities are going to be engaged in that process.

I wonder if this creates some concerns for municipalities, in terms of how they ensure compliance with these issues. The member mentioned a past in municipal politics, so I wonder if he can reflect on that and on how the government could do a better job of fixing the legislation on some of those details.

[Criminal Code, May 29th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask my colleague a question about the impairment testing aspects of the bill. I have some significant concerns about the legalization of marijuana in general, mainly because of the impact it will have on the roads.

The government talks as if there is readily available, clear, reliable testing for marijuana and other drug-related impairment. The reality is that the testing for that is much more difficult and the tests are not nearly as clear or readily available as they are in the case of alcohol. This is because of differences in the physical properties of the substances we are talking about. As much as we can look at more effective ways of combating marijuana use, our party favours a ticketing alternative within the context of maintaining the criminal prohibitions.

I want to hear the member's thoughts specifically on how we can move forward, recognizing the real concerns about whether we can effectively test for impairment.

[Criminal Code, May 29th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I am struck by two things with respect to this issue. The first is that we had a private member's bill that dealt with many similar issues which had already progressed through the committee stage. The government voted to kill that bill in favour of bringing forward a government bill that was different but in many ways similar. The Liberals complain about how in their view the Standing Orders do not provide them with enough ability to advance government legislation. If they actually considered the ideas that come through private members' business, maybe they would not have to go through the process of reintroducing some of the legislation, although with certain modifications that we certainly have concerns about.

The second is that in this legislation there is a presumption that the technology is there for impairment testing around marijuana and that it is somehow analogous to alcohol in terms of the relative ease of impairment testing. The reality is that these are different substances with different kinds of impacts. Marijuana is fat-soluble, which means it is retained in the brain, even if it is much less present in other bodily fluids from a testing perspective. This creates major concerns when we establish a test through bodily fluids for determining impairment. There may be impairment, even if it is not showing up in high levels of bodily fluid, but it may show up in higher levels in those fluids when there is not as much impairment.

I wonder if the member can comment on these two major problems with the way the government is proceeding.

[Petitions, May 29th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to present a petition signed by many people in my constituency about a carbon tax. Surprise, surprise, they are against it. Constituents recognize in my riding the negative impact this will have on the energy sector and jobs in all parts of this country, but particularly in Alberta, which is already facing a jobs crisis. This petition notes that this tax will not help the environment. More effective measures to help the environment would involve exporting Canadian technology to less environmentally friendly jurisdictions, not sending jobs to less environmentally friendly jurisdictions.

This petition protests the tax on everything that the government is trying to impose on provinces, and I heartily agree with my constituents in opposing this imposition by the government on our economy.

[Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, May 29th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, to coin a phrase, diversity is our strength. At our Conservative leadership convention this weekend, I was struck by the diversity in our party—ethnic and religious diversity, yes, but also the intellectual diversity of people with different opinions having respectful discussions.

Unlike the Liberal Party, we embrace diversity of opinion. Our leadership race was remarkably successful, featuring real debate, good ideas from almost all the candidates, and the largest number of people participating in a party leadership in Canadian history.

We have chosen a leader with firm convictions and vision, rooted in real-world experience. We know he did not grow up rich because his father was a journalist. Our leader will unite a diverse Conservative family to make life more affordable for families. We will stand up for freedom of speech, for freedom of of conscience, and for free votes for members of Parliament. He may not look as good in a boxing ring, but our leader will always be on our side.