This week the Prime Minister made what many view as a difficult political decision; to once again approve the construction of the Trans-Mountain pipeline expansion project. 

The total expected cost of the expansion and acquisition is now estimated to be around $14 billion. 

The Prime Minister indicated that construction would begin during this year’s summer construction schedule and has not announced how the $14 billion will be repaid.

The day before this announcement was made the Liberals also tabled a motion to “declare that Canada is in a national climate emergency”.

For the record, a resolution of the House is defined as a “declaration of opinion or purpose; it does not require that any action be taken, nor is it binding.”

The Conservatives proposed amendments to the motion that called on the government to acknowledge that it is not on track to hit its Paris GHG reduction targets and also to recognize that climate change is a global problem. 

Although the Conservative amendments were supported by the Green Party, they were voted down by the Liberal majority, who ultimately passed the original motion with the Conservatives opposed.

From those who are strongly opposed to the Trans-Mountain pipeline project, I am already hearing outrage that the Prime Minister would approve this $14 billion oil pipeline project the day after declaring a national climate emergency in Canada. 

To understand their opposition to the Trans-Mountain project, according to Environment and Climate Change Canada, it will increase the nominal pipeline capacity from the current level of 300,000 barrels per day to 890,000 barrels per day. 

The upstream GHG emissions associated with 890,000 barrels per day is estimated to be between 20 and 26 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year.

However, as the expansion project is adding 590,000 barrels per day the upstream GHG emissions are estimated to be between 14 to 17 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year with the expansion.

NDP MP Peter Julian, who is from BC,  commented that "The Liberals are slapping each other on the back because they passed a motion that is meaningless. [On Tuesday] they are going to rubber-stamp the Trans Mountain pipeline, which will dramatically increase greenhouse gas production in the country. The hypocrisy is beyond belief," 

The Liberals continue to insist that the environment and the economy go hand-in-hand.

So my question this week is not about whether you support the Trans-Mountain pipeline. 

Instead, my question is;

Do you believe that oil pipeline expansion projects, that increase GHG emissions, actually go hand in hand with the environment as the Liberal government insists?

I can be reached at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca or call toll free 1-800-665-8711. 

As the Official Opposition, it is our job to hold the government accountable and at the same time to provide information to citizens that the government may not widely share or present in great detail.

An example of this can be found in the recent media headline “Trudeau announces ban on single-use plastics by 2021”. 

This was an actual media headline quoted directly from a Global news story.

I believe most Canadians are supportive of the idea of taking action on the growing problem of plastic pollution that can have devastating impacts, particularly in sensitive marine habitats.

Often these sensitive marine habitats are polluted by developing countries that do not have proper waste disposal and recycling systems or rogue fishing operations that break maritime waste management protocols. 

However, as Canadians, we should always look to make improvements to ensure a clean environment. 

The idea of taking action on this front requires a credible plan in order to be successful and on that note the Prime Minister’s plan to ban single use plastics is deserving of scrutiny.

For starters, the Prime Minister actually made no promise to ban single use plastics by 2021. 

The date of 2021 is an interesting one as the leader of the NDP made a similar promise recently, only setting their date at 2022.

So what did the Prime Minister actually say? 

The promise was to “ban harmful single-use plastics as early as 2021”.

Note the word "early".

So the actual promise has no firm deadline whatsoever. 

One may also ask what is exactly meant by a “harmful single use plastic”? 

In this case the promise suggests this will be determined by “scientific evidence” and where ”warranted”. 

In other words there is no clear definition.

What we do know about the Canadian plastic sector is that it has estimated annual sales of $10 billion in plastic resin and a further $25 billion in products for a total value of $35 billion, roughly 5% of sales in our domestic manufacturing sector.

From a waste perspective, some of the most common forms of plastic waste are found in plastic packaging that comprises 43% of total plastic waste.

Automotive plastic waste is 9%, textiles 7% and electronic equipment is 7%. Other uses make up the remainder.

A few more important questions remain unanswered. 

What is the specific timeline? 

What happens when there is not an alternative replacement product to a single use plastic, such as in the medical field? 

What would be the total costs to achieve this plan and who would pay for it? 

Since provinces have jurisdiction over waste management and recycling, have they been consulted and are all provinces supportive?

If I sound skeptical, it is largely because I am. 

It appears this plan to reduce single use plastics is well meaning but short on details- more so with a fall election in the offing.

This Prime Minister has a habit of making promises.

For example:

A balanced budget in 2019. 

The 2015 election was to be the last to use first past the post. 

A Liberal Government would not use omnibus budget bills that he makes no effort to fulfill. 

My question this week:

Do you believe this is a credible plan to reduce single use plastics? 

I can be reached at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca or call toll free 1-800-665-8711. 

​As I mentioned in last week’s report, as the House of Commons now enters the final few weeks before the summer adjournment and in this case the final scheduled sitting before the election in October, there are some added challenges for the government.

As the government attempts to prioritize bills it would like to see passed through the House, those bills must also pass through the Senate.

 This has become more challenging in recent times as the Senate has demonstrated an increased willingness to either amend or attempt to delay some bills.

One of those bills currently before the Senate is Bill C-48.

What is Bill C-48?

It is called the “Oil Tanker Moratorium Act” and it applies exclusively to coastal B.C.- more precisely the north coast. 

Before I reference the Senate, I will share some of my own concerns with this bill.

First, is the inherent contradiction of this proposed legislation.

As we know, Mr.Trudeau is proposing to increase the tanker traffic off the west coast with the Trans-Mountain pipeline expansion project.

It is the north coast where he is proposing to ban all oil tankers.

Many have pointed out the contrast in acknowledging risk in one geographic region, and yet ignoring that same potential for risk in another region.

From a safety perspective, the Western Canada Marine Response Corporation can provide spill response service in both geographic regions.

Likewise the Pacific Pilotage Authority, a crown corporation, can also provide the same world-respected marine pilots to navigate these vessels in both regions. Companies such as Seaspan (as an example) can also provide multiple tugboats to assist with docking and escort services in both areas.

In other words the same safety conditions the Prime Minister trusts in one geographic region can be equally provided in another. 

So why a proposed ban in one region and not the other? 

The simple answer is politics, and this is where the Senate, currently debating Bill C-48, has weighed in.

As CBC Reports, a Senate committee investing this bill has concluded that “the bill is a cynical, intentional bid to cripple the economy of Prairie provinces, particularly Alberta, and curry political favour elsewhere in the country.” 

The same CBC report further states this is “driven by the calculation that the ruling Liberals have few seats to lose in Alberta and Saskatchewan.”  

I will note the Liberals currently have 3 seats in Alberta, and 1 in Saskatchewan compared to 17 in BC.

It should also be pointed out that there are 30 different First Nation bands who have joined together to launch a lawsuit trying to stop this tanker ban from going forward. 

They call this proposed tanker ban an unjustified infringement of their aboriginal rights and title.

They point out that this proposed tanker plan would thwart their ability to create economic support for their community through the development of an oil export facility.

At the moment it remains unclear how the entire Senate will vote on the Senate Transportation and Communications committee recommendation to kill Bill C-48. 

My question for you this week:

Do you support Bill C-48 and the moratorium on oil tanker traffic off the North coast?

I can be reached at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca or call toll free 1-800-665-8711.