Kim Rudd

[Natural Resources, October 31st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, our government does fully appreciate the importance of Canada's energy sector to our economy. We know that it supports good, middle-class jobs and generates vital revenues for governments at all levels to pay for our hospitals and schools, sustain our cherished social programs, and support our quality of life. This is why we have been working with the energy sector to ensure its future is built on the three pillars: economic growth, environmental stewardship, and indigenous partnership. It is why, from day one, we have been working hard to restore public confidence in the way major resource projects are reviewed.

We have taken an approach to resource development that will grow our economy while taking real action to protect our oceans and the environment. These are not competing interests, but shared priorities, and the results speak for themselves.

Vital pipelines are being approved, which includes the Trans Mountain expansion and the Line 3 replacement pipelines.

The decision we took on the Trans Mountain expansion pipeline, for example, was based on facts, science, and the national interest. In addition, the National Energy Board, an independent quasi-judicial regulator, reviewed the Trans Mountain expansion proposal. We stand by our decision to approve this federally regulated project and the 15,000 good, middle-class jobs it will create.

However, the member opposite prefers to play the blame game. On the energy east pipeline, she wants to turn a business decision into an opportunity to reawaken historical tensions, arguing rules were changed midstream when no such thing happened.

When the National Energy Board announced it was expanding the scope of its regulatory review, we did two things. First, we offered to conduct the upstream and downstream GHG assessments to avoid added costs to the proponent. Second, we made it clear that we would still use the same process that resulted in the approval of the TMX and Line 3 pipelines. Nothing changed from our perspective.

Perhaps the member opposite will consider the learned opinion of Andrew Leach, an associate professor at the Alberta School of Business, who wrote a well-informed piece in The Globe and Mail. Professor Leach says that the main culprit in energy east's demise was the re-emergence of TransCanada's Keystone XL project, which he called “an 800,000-barrel-a-day express line to refining centres in the United States” and “which presented a more attractive option for shippers than Energy East”.

Professor Leach asked:

Was TransCanada making a business decision when they cancelled Energy East?

He continued:

Of course. It was a decision that will likely allow them to save Keystone XL.

Those are the facts.

[Natural Resources, October 27th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, the decision that we took on the Trans Mountain project was based on facts and evidence, and was in the national interest.

We have listened to thousands of Canadians who have told us that we have a responsibility to get our resources to market, to take action to protect the environment, and to create good-paying jobs.

The approval of Trans Mountain will create 15,000 good, middle-class jobs for Canadians. The project is subject to 157 legally binding conditions to protect the environment and to ensure that the project moves forward in the safest, most environmentally favourable manner possible.

[Parks Canada, October 26th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat that our government is seized with the challenge of protecting Canada's forests from harmful native and invasive species, not just in Alberta but, indeed, across the country. Alberta is not alone. Canada is there and industry is there.

The Canadian Forest Service's team of scientists has demonstrated, time and again, that it has the experience and expertise to develop innovative solutions for these infestations, and it continues to do so in Alberta.

Our government is proud of the efforts, and I know the member opposite appreciates it, too. Together, we will meet this challenge and protect a way of life that has helped to shape our country.

[Parks Canada, October 26th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Yellowhead for bringing this very serious situation back to the floor of the House of Commons tonight.

What he has just described is indeed troubling and a powerful reminder of the terrible damage insect species can inflict on Canada's forest, and in turn the companies, employees, and communities that depend on the forest sector. That includes the more than 16,000 Albertans who work in the province's forest industry.

The reality is that Canada, with its extensive forests, is particularly vulnerable to pests, such as the pine beetle, and the risks have only intensified with climate change, allowing them to spread further and wider, ravaging everything in their path. We are acutely aware that the pine beetle is posing a serious threat to Alberta's pine forests, as well as Canada's boreal forest.

The good news, if there is any good news in this, is that the Canadian Forest Service, which employs Canada's largest team of scientists to counter this menace, is on the ground in the member riding to do everything possible to deal with the situation.

The CFS is a recognized centre of excellence on pests and invests $20 million annually to develop scientific solutions that help forest managers and communities respond to damaging pests by slowing their spread, mitigating their impact, and reducing the risk of infestation in areas not yet affected.

For the mountain pine beetle specifically, this science has helped assess the economic and environmental risks, particularly under a changing climate, and developed adaptive options for affected communities and industries. Its work has also assisted in maximizing value from beetle-killed timber, as well as developing new technologies and products.

As well, the CFS is convening the national response in close collaboration with its provincial counterparts, and working with its Parks Canada colleagues to monitor both beetle expansion and other forest-health related risks in the national Rocky Mountain Parks.

Finally, forest companies are doing their part, too, reaching out to the Canadian Forest Service with greater frequency to better understand the risks that insect species represent to their operations and investments. Yellowhead is a good example where industry, provincial government agencies, Parks Canada, and the Canadian Forest Service are working under the strategic direction council.

This means developing and implementing co-operative management strategies informed by science to mitigate the infestation and spread of mountain pine beetle at the regional level. That is just one example of the collaboration taking place.

Together, we are doing everything we can to protect the economic value of the provincial forest and achieving the ecological integrity objectives of national and provincial parks, and protected areas.

[Natural Resources, October 24th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the global energy markets are rapidly changing. The energy transition is already under way and the energy mix will change. However, the pace and scope are uncertain, so long-term, predictable, inclusive policy direction will be critical. That was an indisputable take-away from generation energy earlier this month. It is also an approach we have set into motion with an open, transparent, and inclusive new way to review projects, which is yielding thousands of good, new jobs.

Our government's efforts have launched Canada on its way to a stronger economy, which we heard earlier today from the Minister of Finance, with healthier communities, and a more sustainable future for generations to come.

[Natural Resources, October 24th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Chilliwack—Hope's question is both timely and important. Unfortunately, it is also very uninformed.

When the member first raised this issue in the House last spring, theMinister of Natural Resources hoped that all sides could at least agree that the National Energy Board we inherited was not perfect. He hoped the member opposite could see how significant reforms could benefit Canada's energy sector, with greater predictability and clearer timelines for the proponents and investors of major energy projects. The minister reminded the member opposite that our new approach for reviewing major resource projects already in the queue was delivering results.

However, it seems the member opposite has chosen to ignore all of that, to ignore the resource projects we have approved and to ignore the thousands of good, middle-class paying jobs these projects represent.

I will talk about those projects, projects like the Trans Mountain expansion pipeline that will create 15,340 jobs and open new markets overseas; the Line 3 replacement pipeline that will create 7,000 jobs and allow more Canadian oil to reach markets in the United States; the Woodfibre LNG facility; the Towerbirch expansion pipeline; the Côté gold mine, the Black Point Quarry, and Sisson mine. How have we done all this? We have done it by engaging meaningfully with indigenous communities, listening carefully to Canadians, and restoring public confidence in our environmental and regulatory processes.

Our goal is to ensure the conditions that will allow us to get Canadian resources to market sustainably, create good, long-term jobs in the energy sector, and maintain Canada's energy security in tomorrow's low-carbon economy.

We saw a great example of that earlier this month when the Minister of Natural Resources capped a six-month national conversation by Canadians by hosting the generation energy forum in his home city of Winnipeg. The forum attracted more than 600 top experts, industry representatives, and indigenous and community leaders from across the country and around the globe. It built on the input from more than 350,000 Canadians who had participated online in the generation energy virtual conversation, the single largest public engagement ever undertaken by Natural Resources Canada and one of the largest in Canadian government history.

The very sad part is that not one of the members of the Conservative Party came. Not one member of the Conservative Party was interested in having a conversation with Canadians about Canada's energy future. It was very disappointing.

The message is clear. Canadians are engaged in our energy future. They value innovation and they are optimistic about our country's ability to be a global leader in the energy transition to a clean growth century.

Our government is laying the foundation for long-term sustainable jobs and a cleaner, brighter future than anyone might have possibly imagined.

[The Environment, October 24th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for King—Vaughan for her advocacy and the excellent work she does as chair of the House's environment committee.

Our government is proud to collaborate on ENERGY STAR, along with more than 1,500 organizations, to help Canadians save money on their utility bills while protecting our planet. Energy efficiency benefits everyone, reducing costs, improving competitiveness and productivity, and creating good, middle-class jobs.

On ENERGY STAR day, we encourage all Canadians to make a commitment to save energy and protect our environment.

[Parks Canada, October 20th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, certainly invasive species in our forest sector are something we have dealt with over the decades and centuries in this country. We are working hard with our partners in the forest sector to find solutions to some of these challenges. There are challenges on the east coast as well as in Alberta. I want to assure the member that we are seized with the issue and will continue to work with the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and the sector to come up with a solution to this challenging problem.

[Natural Resources, October 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is telling that the opposition members still equate measuring greenhouse gas emissions with killing economic growth. They still live in a world where the choice is a stark one between economic prosperity and environmental protection. They cannot imagine how climate action can be turned into a competitive advantage. They simply cannot understand that when a business makes a decision, it is precisely that, a business decision. That is what TransCanada did when it chose to cancel its energy east proposal. It made a business decision.

[Natural Resources, October 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Brandon—Souris for his question and allowing me to respond.

His comments remind us that there are still those who see resource development as an either/or proposition, a choice between either growing the economy or protecting the environment.

His remarks also remind us that some people do not understand that climate action can be a competitive advantage, or that when a business makes a decision it is called a “business decision” for a reason. It was a business decision when the TransCanada Corporation decided not to proceed with the energy east project.

However, since the project was initiated in 2014, there has been a fundamental shift in global markets resulting from the shale oil revolution, including a 60% decline in oil and gas prices, and a 50% drop in capital investment. Were both the revival of the Keystone XL pipeline earlier this year and our government's approval of the Trans Mountain expansion and Line 3 replacement pipelines last November also contributing factors? None of these projects were certainties at the time the energy east project was proposed.

Finally, we do not know if the C.D. Howe Institute is onto something regarding the changing economics behind energy east after TransCanada received regulatory approval to slash the price it charges to move western natural gas to Ontario. All we know is that according to the institute, natural gas producers have been signing up in droves with TransCanada ever since. Therefore, to suggest that a $15.7 billion investment hinged on the National Energy Board's decision to review the downstream emissions from the energy east pipeline suggests a profound ignorance of the myriad of factors that go into a business decision. It also ignores our government's very clear response to the NEB's decision to expand the scope of its review.

First, we offered to conduct the upstream and downstream GHG assessments within the legislated timeline to avoid added costs and delays to the proponent.

Second, we made it clear that our government would ultimately use the same criteria, our January 2016 interim principles, that we applied to our reviews of other major energy projects, including the Trans Mountain expansion and Line 3 pipelines. As the Minister of Natural Resources has said repeatedly, nothing has changed from our perspective.

Our approval of the Trans Mountain expansion and Line 3 pipelines was based on solid science, meaningful consultations, and the best interests of Canada. Our approach to the energy east proposal would have been the same—nothing more and nothing less.