Greg Rickford

[Natural Resources, February 25th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, we know this member's position: budgets balance themselves and energy projects get to market by themselves.

That said, with respect to Keystone, this is a debate between Canada and the United States, a debate between the president and the American people, the majority of whom are supportive of this project.

Keystone XL would create jobs, strengthen energy security for North America, and the state department was clear that it can be environmentally, sustainably done through Keystone XL.

It is not a question of if, it is a question of when this project will be approved. We will continue to be a strong advocate for responsible resource management.

[Natural Resources, February 24th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, the National Energy Board has fulfilled its obligations under the Official Languages Act. Second, all of the documents produced by the board must be published in both official languages.

Questions on documents filed by the applicant should be directed to the proponent.

[Natural Resources, February 23rd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Thornhill for his question. Yes, last week, I was in Quebec City and Toronto. There was a media frenzy around our announcements of significant support for world-leading ecotechnology.

Our sustainable development technology Canada fund is bringing clean tech and clean green-energy solutions to the marketplace and creating good jobs for Canadians. For every dollar invested by our government, the marketplace has responded with 14 private sector dollars for the more than 57 mature companies accessing this fund. We can contrast that with the Liberal carbon tax that would raise the price of everything.

Canadians can count on this government and the clean energy sector to protect the environment without—

[Official Languages, February 19th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the National Energy Board has fulfilled its obligations under the Official Languages Act. All of the documents produced by the National Energy Board must be published in both official languages. Questions related to documents filed by the applicant should be directed to the project proponent.

[The Environment, January 29th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, we will not take a stance before the review is completed. It is up to the National Energy Board to listen to those who are directly affected and have relevant information or knowledge in that area. We base our decisions on science and facts, and we have been clear. Projects will be studied only if they are safe for Canadians and will not harm the environment.

[Natural Resources, January 28th, 2015]

Obviously, Mr. Speaker, there are solutions for that. They come in the form of pipelines.

A viable option and solution would be for Canada to find ways to diversify its markets around the world. We know there are demands in Europe and Asia. It sounds like I can count on the support of the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North for those kinds of projects moving forward.

[Natural Resources, January 27th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, that is a timely question. I was just in Timmins, Kirkland Lake, Cochrane and Hearst early last week. It was -38^o. The folks there were warmed up and comforted by the investments that FedNor was making across that region.

When they got frosty was when I reminded them that the member voted against every one of those measures.

[Natural Resources, January 27th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, that might be a question for the provincial legislature, but I will put it to my friend and colleague, Minister Gravelle, this afternoon, who I will be meeting with to hopefully talk about specific projects that pertain to the Ring of Fire.

As I have reminded this place and my colleagues in Ontario, the Building Canada fund announced in 2013 has the potential to support infrastructure funding for legacy resource development projects like the Ring of Fire. To this date, departments across our government have made responsible investments in the Ring of Fire. We are hopeful that the provincial government will get on board with specific proposals to move this forward.

[Pipeline Safety Act, January 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for that question, particularly with respect to her work in western economic diversification and the support this government is giving for certain companies to advance pipeline security, monitoring, and safety.

There is a reference to best available technology in this legislation. Through our support, these companies from Quebec City and across the country through to Alberta are working on exciting new technologies that will give a key frame of reference for all companies in the business of creating pipelines and energy infrastructure to focus on and take the safety element even further.

With respect to liability, there are two key points here. Pipeline companies remain fully liable when they are found to be at fault or negligent. This is referred to in insurance nomenclature as unlimited liability. What builds on that and what is terrific about the pipeline safety act, which on all accounts has been well received by stakeholders, is the absolute $1 billion liability, which means that no matter what the problem source or whose fault it is, the pipeline company would be responsible to pay up to $1 billion.

An analysis of historical data demonstrates that this level of absolute liability is world-class, world-leading coverage. Comparisons to countries around the world tell us that we are at the forefront and assure Canadians and our prospective customers in new markets that energy infrastructure is important to us and that our liability and compensations lead the world.

[Pipeline Safety Act, January 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I am relieved to hear the member from the Liberal Party talk about pipeline safety and offshore opportunity, particularly with respect to safety, liability, and compensation, as an exercise in public confidence. That would be an important term that is markedly different from what the leader of his party is using.

That said, we have already positioned the NEB with considerably more powers with respect to audits and inspections. As well, the penalties for non-compliance have increased significantly. That has put us in a great position when it comes to this piece of legislation.

The National Energy Board, through a number of measures, will ensure timely, effective, and transparent operations. To modernize the damage prevention regime, these changes will ensure clear roles and responsibilities within the NEB and implement mandatory timelines for committee hearings and decisions as well as any Governor in Council decisions that would be made.

I am pleased that the tone of this debate is pointed toward this being a positive step forward with respect to public safety and public confidence. Moving pipeline safety to the forefront is the centrepiece for establishing everyone's frame of reference with respect to how committed this government is to ensuring we have world-class, if not world-leading, pipeline safety for this country.