Bill C-264

An Act to repeal certain restrictions on shipping

This enactment repeals the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act .

An Act to repeal certain restrictions on shipping

[David McKenzie, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

moved that Bill C-264, An Act to repeal certain restrictions on shipping, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise in the House today to speak on behalf of the residents of Calgary Signal Hill.

“The...MOU will build a pipeline”. Canada's Prime Minister made that statement in the House just four months ago. Of course, the Prime Minister was referring to the Memorandum of Understanding signed by the Province of Alberta and the federal government just six months ago.

Since that time, the Prime Minister has made a number of statements promising Canadians additional oil export capacity by pipeline for the single most valuable natural resource exported by Canada. For example, the Prime Minister said less than two weeks ago, “we will advance a potential pipeline to transport at least one million barrels of low-emission Alberta oil a day to new markets.” That statement is consistent with what the Prime Minister said a year ago: “If you want a simple answer on ‘Will I support...a pipeline?’ Yes. That simple answer. I’ve given that multiple times.”

Over and above the statements of the Prime Minister, the Province of Alberta and the federal government, just 10 days ago, signed an implementation agreement respecting the November MOU. The implementation agreement says that Alberta will submit a comprehensive proposal for an oil pipeline to Asian markets to the Major Projects Office by July 1, just over five weeks from now, and, second, that “Canada will pursue [its designation] as a project of national interest for approval under the Building Canada Act by October 1, 2026”. We might just be getting somewhere.

Members may be wondering if the bill up for debate right now is indeed Bill C-264, an act to repeal the west coast tanker ban. After all, I have mentioned nothing about ships or tankers, just pipelines. The fact is that a precondition of the construction of a new crude oil export pipeline is the ability to load the oil transported by that pipeline onto a tanker for delivery to international markets. While Canada presently loads hundreds of thousands of barrels of crude oil onto ships through the Westridge terminus of the Trans Mountain pipeline at Burnaby, B.C., Bill C-48, the west coast tanker ban, prevents shipment from the northern B.C. coast.

Greg Ebel, the CEO of Enbridge, Canada's biggest crude oil shipper, said, “No company would build a pipeline to nowhere.” Further, Mr. Ebel stated, “The tanker ban is a great example of how things will have to change to allow our country to maximize its economic potential. Let markets and real demand guide routes and capacities while government focuses on enabling the conditions for success.” Truer words are seldom spoken.

Let us put these pieces together. The Prime Minister wants a pipeline built. Industry will build a pipeline and fill it with oil if that oil can be loaded onto tankers on Canada's west coast for export. Therefore, our next logical step is to repeal Bill C-48, the west coast Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, to allow for the safe and responsible ocean transport of crude oil that has been safely and responsibly produced here in Canada.

There is good news, and it is only Tuesday. The Conservatives are here to help, and Bill C-264 is just what the doctor ordered: a repeal of the tanker ban so that the way would be clear for the construction of a new crude oil export pipeline and an increase in the safe and responsible shipment of Canadian oil to our international trading partners and allies across Asia.

The demand for responsibly produced Canadian energy, including crude oil, has already been made clear. Nations that are not energy self-sufficient are interested in Canada as an energy supplier. We are a stable, democratic nation with environmental standards that are second to none, and we are a supplier of choice. Countries including India, Indonesia, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and Japan, the very countries with which the Prime Minister is trying to grow our trading relationships, want Canadian energy.

While we have a great deal to gain by eliminating the west coast tanker ban, Canada also has something to lose if we do not take this opportunity to remove obstacles and develop the capacity to supply our international trading partners. Tim McMillan, former minister of energy and resources for the Province of Saskatchewan, was CEO of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers in 2019 when he stated, “Bill C-48 has the potential to permanently block Canada from exporting its responsibly produced natural resources to growing international markets, preventing us from helping to displace global greenhouse gas emissions and lift other nations out of energy poverty.”

Martha Hall Findlay, former Liberal member of Parliament, was markedly more blunt when she said the tanker ban “was bad legislation and the government should get rid of it.” Ms. Hall Findlay identified a different approach from that taken by the current Liberal government with Bill C-48, when she said, “There are better alternatives to C-48, such as setting aside what are called Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas, which have been established in areas such as the Great Barrier Reef and the Galapagos Islands.”

Why do we have Bill C-48? When the Liberals put the tanker ban in place, they argued that it was necessary for protecting the environment. That argument is completely inconsistent with the reality of commercial shipping on Canada's west coast. Nearly a century of tanker traffic has sailed the west coast without a serious oil spill of Canadian crude. Tankers are statistically safer than cars, airplanes, trains and even oil pipelines, when we look at the number of shipments safely transported. Right now the port of Vancouver loads roughly 400 oil tankers each year, and there have been no spills. Our safety standards are world-class, and our safety record proves it.

The Liberals also argued that the tanker ban was required in order to protect the Hecate Strait in particular, because it is difficult to navigate and supposedly remarkably dangerous. This argument does not seem to have a basis in scientific fact. There are no Transport Canada risk analyses that describe the strait as particularly challenging. B.C. passenger ferries travel through the strait on a regular basis. The Prince Rupert Port Authority says the Hecate Strait is “a deep, ice free inlet with easy access and can be entered at all times and in all seasons.”

When it comes to rough weather, I have been told by a former port authority employee that the high-tech solution is to wait. Satellite weather analysis and modern technology mean that ship captains can see rough conditions coming or see when they exist, and they simply wait out those conditions.

The fact is that loaded oil tankers have passed through the Hecate Strait in the last half-dozen years during the existence of the tanker ban. There have not been many passages, but it does happen. I would suggest that it is not well known that these voyages have occurred from time to time, because the tankers have transited the Hecate Strait safely and without incident.

It is important to note that oil tankers do not need to pass through the Hecate Strait to transport crude oil from the northern B.C. port of Prince Rupert. Rather, ships headed to international ports would sail through the Dixon Entrance and into the open ocean. The Dixon Entrance is a body of water that is 13 kilometres wide at its narrowest point. By way of illustration, 289 tankers would fit side by side across that distance of 13 kilometres.

I want to speak to the safety of our maritime shipping industry. Today's tanker fleet is double-hulled, it sails using GPS navigation technology, it is extensively monitored, and when close to shore it requires escort tugs and marine pilots specifically trained on the waters that the ship is in. Tankers and commercial shipping are very safe, and we should be supporting and celebrating the capacity that exists on our west coast, rather than doubting the ability of our seafaring professionals to get this job done and done right.

While overall safety is very high, marine accidents can and do happen. The most common causes, however, are not dangerous waters or freak weather occurrences but ship collisions and groundings. These accidents, logically, tend to happen when ships are near ports, and particularly when the ports are congested. The port of Vancouver currently suffers from congestion issues and aging infrastructure, and the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion has already increased tanker traffic there. Additional port capacity at Prince Rupert and Kitimat can reduce the pressure on the port of Vancouver and increase shipping safety.

Again, former Liberal MP Ms. Hall Findlay was succinct on the subject of shipping risk. She said, “There are risks associated with any kind of transportation with any goods, and not all of them are with oil tankers. All that singling out one part of one coast did was prevent more oil and gas from being produced that could be shipped off that coast”.

Those who feel our west coast tanker waters are too dangerous for crude oil tankers must be wondering how different our east coast is from our west coast. On Canada's east coast, roughly 240 tanker trips every year move crude oil on the St. Lawrence River between storage in Montreal and refining facilities outside of Quebec City. In Newfoundland and Labrador, about 90 oil tankers visit the Whiffen Head facility every year to load crude oil.

Denise Mullen, director of environment, sustainability and indigenous relations at the Business Council of British Columbia, said this about the west coast tanker ban: “Comparable shipments face no such restrictions on the East Coast.... This unfair treatment reinforces Canada’s over-reliance on the U.S. market, where Canadian oil is sold at a discount, by restricting access to Asia-Pacific markets.”

It is 100% clear that the Canadian energy sector is the financial backbone of our country. That is something that I and hundreds of thousands of Canadians engaged in the responsible production of Canadian oil and gas are rightfully proud of. In the face of this fact, it is not just self-defeating to maintain the west coast tanker ban but simply nonsensical.

Denise Mullen, with the Business Council of British Columbia, as I mentioned, said it well. She said the tanker ban “results in billions in lost government revenues and reduced private investment at a time when our economy can least afford it.”

The Liberal tanker ban was always about shutting down Canadian oil production, not safety or environmental protection. For more than half a decade now, the Liberal west coast tanker ban has been a roadblock to true nation building. It has not been just a piece of legislation. It has been a project killer. It is part of the Liberal anti-energy agenda that over the last decade effectively ended the northern gateway pipeline and the indigenous-owned Eagle Spirit energy project.

We must pause to consider the gravity of these facts. If those projects had been allowed to move forward, Canada would already be providing energy security to countries like South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and India, not just talking about it. Our energy industry is world-leading in advanced technologies, environmental safety and impact; creates thousands of high-paying jobs; and fosters real economic reconciliation with indigenous communities. Our energy industry deserves our support, real and concrete support through action, not just words and high-minded ideas.

Our Conservative caucus supported the government legislation that created the Major Projects Office. It was, and is, not the best solution to getting our country building again, but it was a small step in the right direction. Right now, we need to take another step in the right direction: repeal the tanker ban and further clear the way to making Canada a true energy superpower.

We must focus on the facts, focus on the science, trust the experts in marine shipping who will work with local communities, work with indigenous communities, and work with fishers and other marine transporters and shippers to ensure that shipping of all descriptions will be safe and secure. We need to reject sea stories and hysteria and have confidence that we can ship crude oil and do it safely.

I give the last word to Martha Hall Findlay, former Liberal member of Parliament, as I mentioned, who said, “I’m hoping that we see the revival of a federal government that brings pragmatism to governing the country.... Repealing [Bill] C-48 would be a sign of that happening.”

I have, I am sure, just a few seconds left. I received an interesting email from a resident in North Vancouver. Her name is Andrea, and she writes, “I've been very frustrated with this tanker ban. No such thing set up for the east, so why B.C.? This has always seemed too extreme. We have tankers coming and going in the Salish Sea, Georgia Strait, Vancouver Harbour and especially the very narrow and relatively shallow Lions Gate Bridge entrance with no issues.”

I will end there.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to consultations with indigenous people toward the very tail end of his comments. In coming up with his private member's bill, has the member done any consultation with indigenous communities? Could he let us know of any indigenous communities where he has gotten support for the bill?

[David McKenzie, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the next member to speak to the bill will be able to give some insight into the viewpoints of indigenous communities on this.

I would note that historically, a significant amount of indigenous community support was assembled and put into place through discussion, consultation and negotiation for northern gateway. As I mentioned in my remarks, the Eagle Spirit energy project itself was indigenous-led and -created. Both of those projects were terminated by a Liberal government with an anti-oil, anti-energy agenda.

Work has been done. It has been thwarted to date. I would welcome the opportunity, once the way is clear, for private industry to undertake those obligations with respect to consultation.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier in his speech, my colleague referred to Enbridge's CEO.

There is a quote I like from the Enbridge CEO. He said he was not willing to take the financial risks that come with a pipeline. The CEO of Enbridge believes that, if a pipeline is to be built, it should be paid for with public money. The pipeline project they are talking about and for which the government wants to repeal a law that protects nature is nothing more than a fantasy.

I would like my colleague to enlighten me. Does he agree that it is up to all taxpayers to pay for oil and gas infrastructure that will benefit the oil companies? Also, before throwing out regulations like these, should he not ensure that, at the very least, someone is prepared to be the proponent of a project like the pipeline?

[David McKenzie, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by thanking my friend for the vote of confidence that I might have the several billion dollars required to advance a pipeline project, but I am afraid that is not within my capacities.

Were circumstances and all things equal, I would absolutely be prepared to be a proponent for a pipeline project. I believe in pipelines. Our country has well in excess of 100,000 kilometres of pipelines operating safely beneath our soil, right now, this minute. The reason I think Canadians generally are not aware of that is that these pipelines operate safely, without incident, on an ongoing, daily basis. They have for decades, in many cases. We have had the luxury of forgetting about them.

The question of public money is an important one. I do not believe there should be any public money in a pipeline. In fact, I do not believe there is any necessity for that. As long as the regulation is appropriate and the government is out of the way, the private sector will take care of this.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his excellent speech. I think more Canadians than ever before are ready to hear it. They want the government to change the fundamentals, to get rid of its anti-energy laws, so that Canada can be affordable, self-reliant, strong and free.

In partial response to what a Liberal member asked my colleague earlier, I would just point out that, indeed, when former Prime Minister Trudeau, advised by the current Prime Minister, vetoed the northern gateway pipeline, he did not consult any of the various indigenous communities that had worked for years to establish agreements and had hopes and plans for the revenue that would derive from that pipeline. The former prime minister could have chosen the option to get the court right. He did not. Then he screwed up TMX, and he called a mulligan on it later.

Those are the facts. What is also interesting about this tanker ban, and my colleague is exactly right, is that it is actually about stopping the shipping of energy exports for the benefit of Canada and global security, because it only stops the onloading and off-loading of crude and persistent oils.

I wonder if my colleague would talk about the negative signal that maintaining the tanker ban sends and how it does not actually line up with the Prime Minister's great rhetoric of Canada becoming an energy superpower, which every single one of us knows could happen if—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Calgary Signal Hill, a brief response.

[David McKenzie, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the enthusiasm of my colleague always energizes me.

The opportunity that we have is very significant. It has been made clear, and I have heard it in various contexts from various individuals involved in working in the energy industry, that a necessary precondition for a pipeline construction company to get serious about a pipeline is the ability to offtake the oil. A million barrels a day are not going into the ocean. They must go to a tanker, so there has to be, as a precondition, the ability to ship the oil.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to speak to Bill C-264, and I will say at the outset what the central problem with this bill is. It is a one-line proposition dressed up as serious policy. It is a slogan in legislative form. It asks this Parliament to do something that the legislative record, the scientific record, the consultation record and the conservation record of this country have all decided against repeatedly over 50 years under prime ministers of every party. Perhaps we should take a walk down memory lane and look at history.

In 1972, the House passed a resolution declaring that “the movement of oil by tanker along the coast of British Columbia...is inimical to Canadian interests”. It said “inimical”. That was the language of this Parliament in 1972.

In 1985, a Conservative prime minister named Brian Mulroney established a voluntary tanker exclusion zone along the north coast of British Columbia. It was a Tory prime minister, a Tory cabinet and a Tory decision, and a good one at that.

In 1988, that exclusion zone was formalized through coordination between the Canadian Coast Guard, the United States Coast Guard and the Reagan administration. A Conservative government and a Republican government worked together to protect the environment, imagine that. Now a Conservative opposition in Ottawa is working to undo exactly that.

Let us think back to 1989. The Exxon Valdez ran aground in Prince William Sound. Thousands of kilometres of coastline were contaminated. A herring fishery collapsed and is still not yet fully recovered. Marine ecosystems were damaged in ways that are still being studied today. That disaster reinforced what Canadian governments had already concluded: The risk on that coast is unique, and the consequences of failure are too great. Members from British Columbia, particularly, are concerned about this. While I appreciate the concern for the environment from our members from Alberta, this is a particular problem that affects British Columbia, but it should affect the sensibility of all Canadians.

For 34 years, this voluntary moratorium held, through four Conservative prime ministers and four Liberal prime ministers. None of them moved to repeal it, and none of them tried.

In 2017, our government introduced Bill C-48, the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, to give that 34-year consensus the force of statute. It passed the House with support from members of four of five parties represented. That is the history, and that is what this slogan, or this bill, proposes to overturn.

The members opposite are not making a science-based case for repeal. They are not bringing forward new evidence about the risk on the north coast. They are not presenting a new technology or a new spill response capacity that changes that calculus. They are not pointing to a change in the vulnerability of that coast. They are bringing forward a one-line bill, with no consultation, no indigenous engagement and no environmental review, that asks Parliament to undo half a century of careful policy because it might look good in a social media clip.

I want to make a point that I think the members opposite have not fully thought through, and I say this in the spirit of genuine concern for the credibility of debate in this institution. If the members opposite truly believe that a pipeline to the north coast of British Columbia is the future of Canadian energy, passage of this bill would be the worst possible way to pursue that future. The moment that this bill comes to a vote, it would galvanize every coastal first nation, every B.C. municipality, every environmental organization, every one of us who is concerned about the environment and every legal team in the country who has spent decades preparing for exactly this fight. It would guarantee injunctions. It would guarantee litigation. It would guarantee gridlock.

If I were being cynical about it, I might encourage members opposite to proceed and encourage us to vote for it, to tie that up in the courts. Passing this bill would be the single most effective way to ensure that no pipeline ever gets built to the north coast of British Columbia, because the legal and political response that this bill on its own would trigger would be exactly that. That is not how to build big things in this country. That is how to make sure they never get built, and the proof of that is the years of Conservative government when not a single pipeline was built and no progress was made in protecting the environment, all at once. It was quite remarkable.

Let us talk about the substantive case for why this moratorium should stand. First is the nature of the coast itself. The waters from the northern tip of Vancouver Island to the Alaska border are some of the most biologically productive seas on the planet, habitat for over 25 species of marine animals and spawning grounds for salmon runs that sustain ecosystems. This is not any ordinary coastline.

The second is the nature of that risk. Crude oil tankers are vessels carrying volumes of persistent oil that, in the event of a failure, cannot be cleaned up. A herring fishery collapsed after the Exxon Valdez, and as I said earlier, it has still not recovered. The Nathan E. Stewart tug ran aground near Bella Bella in 2016. There was a diesel spill, and the Heiltsuk Nation is still measuring the consequences of that a decade later.

The third is the obligation to coastal first nations, something that seems like an inconvenience to members opposite. The Coastal First Nations alliance has made its position clear, repeatedly, for decades. They are rights holders whose constitutional position is at the centre of it. Those nations have spoken loud and clear, and I would encourage members opposite to speak to them directly to hear their voices.

The fourth pillar is, of course, the alternatives. There is already a pipeline to tidewater in this country, TMX. Expanded and operational, it is moving Canadian energy to global markets through the port of Vancouver, where the safety architecture, the spill response capacity, the marine traffic management and the indigenous consultation frameworks are all built around that infrastructure. Canadian energy has access to the Pacific. It has access to the markets that it needs to be going to, and we are working hard to ensure that, in the cleanest, greenest way possible, we continue to make that possible under the right conditions. It does not need access at the cost of a coastline that this Parliament, 50 years ago, declared inimical to Canadian interests to put at risk.

Unless every single box is checked and all of the criteria are met to the satisfaction of all parties involved, there is no reason for a new pipeline to go through the north coast. If the science has changed, if science tells us something different and if indigenous consultations tell us something different, then we should all be having that conversation, but a one-line bill that proposes to change history just because it would look good is not how serious governments should make decisions.

This is a government that believes in evidence. It is a government that believes in science. This is a government that believes in building a strong economy and protecting a healthy future for our environment. We believe these are not opposites. Quite the opposite, in fact, we believe they are part of the same future.

We have demonstrated that. We have ensured Trans Mountain's viability. We signed a Canada-Alberta memorandum of understanding, which put a $130-per-tonne price floor under industrial carbon pricing in Alberta. We have secured an agreement in principle for a 75% reduction in methane emissions from Alberta's oil and gas sector by 2035. We have launched a joint electricity working group with Alberta to build a net-zero grid by 2050, including transmission interties that will finally allow British Columbia to export clean hydroelectric power eastward.

Let us also look at the facts. From 2014 to 2025, bitumen production in this country grew by 63%. Alberta's royalties from 2021 to 2025 totalled $58 billion, nearly four times what they were in the previous seven years combined. At the same time as this happened, under a Liberal government, we were also able to preserve and protect 6,700 square kilometres on the north coast of British Columbia, larger than the size of P.E.I., in a nature reserve.

That is how intelligent, managed, evidence-based energy policy works. It looks like signing an MOU. It looks like pricing carbon, cutting methane, respecting indigenous rights and our natural environment, and protecting our coast. It looks like building big things and protecting what no amount of private sector intervention can replace. What it does not look like is a one-line bill repealing 50 years of conservation policy because it polls well in a fundraising email for Conservatives. We owe Canadians better than that. We owe the next generation better than that. My son is in the lobby watching this speech today. I owe him better than that. We all do. We owe the coastal communities of British Columbia better than that. The case for repeal has not been made.

I will be voting against Bill C-264. I urge every member of the House who has a conscience, who cares about the coastline of British Columbia and who cares about our environmental future and about building a prosperous economy to do the same.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that the Bloc Québécois will be voting against Bill C-264, which simply seeks to repeal the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act.

When I look at this, I see an irrational bill that can perhaps only be explained by an ideological mindset we are seeing more and more of, one that amounts to saying that anything goes for the oil industry. I will explain what I mean when I say that “anything goes for the oil industry.”

The idea occurred to me earlier when I asked my colleague a question and he replied—and I am going to take the liberty of speaking in English, which I never do here—“I believe in pipelines.” That is quite the statement.

I am a fan of Dostoevsky. This makes me think of a novel by Dostoevsky called Demons, which came out at the end of the 19th century, where Dostoevsky, in the face of ideological excesses, poses a rather simple question: Is everything permitted? Is everything permitted in the name of an ideology?

What strikes me today about this downward spiral we are currently experiencing whenever there is a crisis—be it in response to the tariff crisis, or even when we were going through the COVID-19 pandemic, or a crisis of national unity—is the fact that anything goes. The only solution the Liberal and Conservative parties can come up with to address these issues is to support the gas and oil sector and call for more state intervention to develop oil infrastructure.

The truth is that we are living in a completely absurd situation for this to be happening. We are in a tariff war with the Americans. What are the two economic sectors most affected by this tariff crisis? They are in Quebec. These are the aluminum industry, facing 50% tariffs, and the softwood lumber sector, facing around 45% in combined countervailing duties, anti-dumping duties and tariffs. These are the two sectors most affected by the current tariff dispute with the United States. What has been the government's response to this threat? It has been to say that we need to invest in our energy sector and increase energy exports. That is what the government has chosen.

It signed a memorandum of understanding with the Government of Alberta, and now we are faced with a bill like the one my colleague just introduced. There seems to be a sort of one-upmanship going on between the Liberals and the Conservatives. Who is willing to go the furthest to support the oil and gas sector? That is what is going on.

I do not think we would have seen a bill like this a few months ago if the government had not fallen into the trap of the memorandum of understanding with Alberta.

I have seen this kind of one-upmanship many times over the past several years. When I arrived here in 2019, what surprised me was hearing my Conservative colleagues shouting day in and day out, “build a pipeline”.

Even though hydroelectricity is important to us, I doubt I would ever see a Quebecker in the National Assembly shouting for the construction of power lines. This is not a lifestyle. It is not a political project.

Another thing that struck me was seeing my Conservative colleagues wearing buttons that read “I love oil & gas”.

When I was a boy of 16 or 17, I had a button from my favourite rock band. That rock band represented my identity. It was important to me. Later on, and this still happens in the Bloc Québécois, we wear symbols that are specific to Quebec. We stick Quebec flags on our computers. That is because of our identity. If we were to define what is Quebec's identity, we would speak about culture and language. For some Conservatives, one part of their identity is the oil and gas sector. That is rather surprising in the current context.

In fact, it runs quite deep. I remember one of my Conservative colleagues moving a motion stating that oil is irreplaceable. We debated that for an entire day.

If I were asked to think about something that is irreplaceable for me, I would first and foremost think about my wife and son. Perhaps after that, I would mention water, air and the essentials of life. I would certainly not think about oil.

I asked whether this is a situation where anything goes. What we are seeing today is akin to saying that oil is irreplaceable. This would repeal legislation that was put in place to protect the environment in order to promote the oil sector's agenda for the sake of a hypothetical pipeline.

That is the question that I asked my colleague earlier. He spoke about the CEO of Enbridge, who described the difficulties involved in building oil and gas infrastructure. However, the Enbridge CEO also said that he personally was not prepared to take on the economic risks of building infrastructure. That is where a reasonable Conservative would draw the line.

I enjoyed hearing the leader of the official opposition straight-out say that corporate welfare exists and that companies want their infrastructure paid for. Those are not my words. Those are the words of the leader of the official opposition. It is up to those companies to pay. However, oil and gas sector officials are saying that, in fact, it should fall on the government to assume the economic risk associated with this infrastructure.

It is outrageous. When we look at the numbers from 2021 to 2024, the oil and gas sector raked in $131 billion in profits. Not so long ago, at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, we heard from representatives of the major unions that support the energy sector because they have workers in that sector They told us that we are seeing a dramatic increase in production while there are fewer jobs. How is that possible? It is possible because the people at these big oil and gas companies are greedy and are willing to invest in the automation of their processes to cut jobs and production costs. However, they are not willing to invest in infrastructure.

Today, we are being presented with a motion that asks us to scrap environmental regulations. Who stands to gain from this? It is certainly not the public. This is to make life easier for the oil and gas giants. In return, they come asking us to pay for their infrastructure. It is absolutely outrageous. I do not understand how we got here. Even though we are in a crisis, I do not understand how people who are supposed to be rational, whether they are Liberals or Conservatives, have reached this point.

I would like to conclude by saying the following. As members know, I have a great deal of respect for the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie. Many people have been critical of the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie. He may make an announcement tomorrow. I know that the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie is a well-intentioned person. I know he has decided to do something that is not often done in the environmental movement, namely, to set aside certain convictions in order to be pragmatic. He thought he would try to bring about concrete change.

There is something very simple in politics: A person either sticks to their convictions, or they choose to set their convictions aside for a moment to try to advance their ideas in a more responsible way. I get the impression that the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie has reached a point of no return and that today he is going to return to his old convictions. He has realized that the government may have gone too far.

In my opinion, the bill proposed by my colleague is a manifestation of the current excesses in the oil and gas sector. I sincerely hope that a large number of members of the House will vote against it.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise on behalf of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, and more of an honour to go back over the 20 years of experience I have in project development.

In 2003, we really did not know what environmental assessment, permitting or aboriginal rights and title were. The Haida court case of 2004 still had not come out yet. By 2004-05, we had to piece it all together and try to understand it. We were living in a condemned residential school building that only had one computer and faxes, but we did it. To understand the process to achieve our objectives was the goal, because nothing else worked for us to get our people out of poverty and to get us out from the paternalistic Indian Act. We tried tourism, forestry and programs, but nothing worked, so we changed our strategy after a while and started engaging the economy. That is how Peace in the Forest, LNG and our deliberations on oil came about. It was all based on process, not on ideology or politics. What is the process in place here? How is the government going to ensure that it is going to engage first nations, as per section 35 of the Constitution?

I see that the Prime Minister made an announcement in Vancouver a few days ago saying that it was non-negotiable to deal with aboriginal rights and title. Somehow, people clapped like he invented sliced bread. That has been in place since 2004. The processes that we developed, first nations along with the Crown, the communication processes to breathe life into the Haida court case of 2004, are well established. That ship has sailed.

Now the question is whether the Liberal government is going to override all those processes and all that case law to fast-track a project, meaning a pipeline to the west coast of B.C. We have to remember where this came from. The Prime Minister sold himself as the person who could get control of Trump. That was it. Then, from then on, we started to hear all the doublespeak. Back then, the quote was, from the Prime Minister, “We will win this trade war and build the strongest economy in the G7.” He gave up on that. Then, he changed the narrative to “Many of our former strengths, based on our close ties to America, have become weaknesses—weaknesses that we must correct.” That has not gone over so well.

There was the slogan of “elbows up”, but I guess Trump did not get the idea of what elbows up meant. Then the Prime Minister said, “Canada...has the best trade deal with the United States. While it's different from what we had before, it is still better than that of any other country.”

I think that by now, Canadians understand that tariffs are here to stay. It does not matter if someone is a Republican or Democrat down in the United States, tariffs are here to stay. It got so bad for the Liberals that they hired a former Conservative leader to be part of the negotiation team to see if they could salvage something, but it is not looking so great.

The promise during the campaign was to invoke the Emergencies Act to get projects built, but that was scratched. Then, it was the Building Canada Act. When people come to me and ask what it is all about, I have to tell them that I do not know; I have no idea.

I get process, but this is now such a scattered plan. We just heard the Liberals debating against tanker traffic. It is their MOU with Alberta, not ours. They have the gall to mention that there was no consultation on this bill. There was no consultation on the MOU or the co-operation agreement. Even with Pathways, they made the announcement of carbon sequestration and then they went over to the first nation and said, "Okay, now we are going to consult with you," even though they had made the decision.

It was an afterthought. There was no respect for section 35 of the Constitution. Then the government brought in the doublespeak again. To save face, it was going to talk about consent. It had already made a deal to fast-track a project within one year, with shovels in the ground and all that stuff. Then the Prime Minister said that he would not do anything without consent, not only the consent of the first nations, which would have to be an elaborate plan, but also the consent of the Premier of British Columbia. The government was fighting against its own MOU. It was fighting against its own co-operation agreement. It was fighting against its own Building Canada Act.

All this mixed messaging is failing Canadians. The biggest announcement in the last year to diversify our oil exports was to revive Keystone to bring more oil to the United States. That is not even ironic. The idea was to get away from or at least diversify the markets away from America, not build up more dependence.

When we are talking about the tanker ban itself, we have to know what it is. The ban prohibits oil tankers from stopping, unloading or loading in any port in a designated area. That is it because currently people are allowed to import or export, or even load or unload, 12,500 metric tons of crude oil or persistent oil products.

The Liberals talked about diesel spills on the west coast, which have been happening for the last 100 years. Tugboats go down. Seine boats go down. Gillnetters go down. It does not matter what one's background or ethnicity is. Everybody who owns a boat that sank has contributed to that diesel or gasoline spill. That is not new. In fact, the first nations that still depend on diesel for electricity have had spills at their docks. Now we are trying to eradicate that, of course, but it is going to take time.

We are talking about a voluntary exclusion zone, a buffer zone between tankers and much of B.C.'s coast extending further offshore. We saw the story of an oil tanker going up Hecate Strait between the mainland of B.C. and Haida Gwaii, but we did not get an explanation as to why. I thought it was because of the International Maritime Organization's laws, which Canada is a signatory to. We are talking about safety. There was a rumour saying that it is a shorter distance for an oil tanker to come up from Burnaby, B.C., to go up the strait and then head over to China. That is not much of a tanker ban. The risk is still there.

The Liberal government likes to talk about risk, but fails to mention all the tankers coming from Alaska to Washington state. What does Washington state do with that crude oil? It turns it into aviation jet fuel, gas and diesel, and we buy it from Washington state. We do not have a domestic energy policy. We are vulnerable. We saw the flooding that happened on the Coquihalla Highway in B.C. It got to a point where the Americans came to B.C.'s rescue. B.C. residents were rationed to 30 litres at a time for a fill-up at a gas station. What did Washington state do? It supplemented B.C.'s supply of gasoline and diesel by barging up more gas and diesel. At that time, the NDP premier mused about expanding the refinery capacity at Burnaby, trying to get away from this vulnerability that Canadians face.

There is also a penalty for violating this voluntary tanker moratorium. It can include fines of up to $5 million for each instance of non-compliance. It does not mention anything about Americans. It does not mention anything about the tankers coming from Burnaby.

[Claude Guay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the members for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-264, an act to repeal certain restrictions on shipping. If the hon. members listen carefully to my speech, they may find answers to some of the questions they have raised today.

As proposed, the bill seeks to repeal the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act even though there are no project proposals on the table that even require it to be amended. This means that all the large-tonnage oil tanker bans and legal requirements currently in force on the north coast of British Columbia would no longer apply, nor would the environmental protection measures that this legislation supports.

Let me be clear: Canada's oceans are a source of pride for Canadians and are of national importance. Our oceans are the cornerstones of our livelihoods and our sovereignty, and protecting them is essential to our economic security and Canada's future. Canada's sovereignty is strengthened when our waters are safe, our ecosystems are protected, our communities are supported and our shipping industry is resilient.

Canada has one of the most stringent marine safety regimes in the world and enforces strict rules on safety, the environment and spill response. We must ensure that any changes to this regime are subject to thorough review and consultation, and that any actions taken are in the public interest of all Canadians.

The act, which received royal assent in 2019, prohibits vessels carrying more than 12,500 metric tons of crude oil or persistent oil products as cargo from stopping, loading or unloading at ports or marine installations within the moratorium area. The protected area extends from the Canada-U.S. border in the north to the tip of British Columbia across from the northern tip of Vancouver Island. It includes Haida Gwaii and protects the Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Strait. The act complements the voluntary tanker exclusion zone, which has been in place since 1985.

The scope of the act is carefully defined. Shipments of less than 12,500 tons are permitted in order to ensure that communities and industry in the north coast receive essential supplies, particularly home heating oil and other oil products.

The Oil Tanker Moratorium Act also does not apply to the transportation of non-persistent oils such as gasoline, naphtha, kerosene and propane, nor to liquefied natural gas or other alternative fuels such as hydrogen, ammonia and methane, which dissipate quickly in the event of a spill.

We all know that the global economy is undergoing significant disruption and that the government is working to diversify our trade relationships and to attract significant investment to build a stronger, more sustainable and more resilient economy. The government is investing in trade-enabling transportation infrastructure and supply chain capacity, as well as working to promote nation-building projects, particularly those that connect our economy and diversify our trade.

As we know, last November, Canada and Alberta signed a memorandum of understanding in the energy sector, which provided that amendments to the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act could be considered if necessary. This does not mean that we are repealing the act, but rather that we recognize the importance of a balanced approach that allows for amendments to the act in the context of a specific project, where the risks, opportunities and mitigation measures specific to that project could be taken into account.

Just as the provisions of the act were carefully considered, any amendments to it must also be carefully considered to ensure that we support economic growth while also protecting our environment. Any amendments to the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act should be considered within the context of a specific project proposal that allows for a clear assessment. This would enable us to take a strategic approach to potential amendments, so as to mitigate risks while continuing to protect the environment.

Canada has not chosen between economic growth and prosperity on one hand and environmental protection on the other. We have pursued both of these objectives simultaneously, and we must continue to do so. We must continue to welcome economic proposals that boost national productivity and market access. However, we must also demand credible plans to protect ecosystems, partnerships with indigenous rights holders and the continued existence of environmental protection measures in the most sensitive areas.

If a proposal affecting the area covered by the moratorium is put before us, we will assess it thoroughly and transparently and, if necessary, carefully consider how to adapt the legislation. Until then, we do not support amending or repealing the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act.

I urge the hon. members of the House to oppose Bill C-264 and to support our environmental protection measures.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to support the private member's bill concerning Bill C-48.

It is mind-boggling to watch the government continue to deny Alberta, and to also deny the facts around the system and the facts around the issue of the incredible contribution that the energy industry makes to Canadian finances and will make in the future as well. We have seen reports that say that losing the northern gateway has cost Canada $20 billion in lost revenue since the Liberal government cancelled it.

The Liberals wonder who is going to bring a new pipeline to Canada and invest billions of dollars. The government wants industry to spend an extra $20 billion for carbon capture. Who is going to spend that to develop a pipeline to nowhere, as the government is proposing, with $20 billion just for the carbon capture, on top of perhaps another $15 billion to get a pipeline to the coast, only to have the Liberal government say no to Alberta oil off the B.C. coast”?

At the same time, the same Liberal government allows hundreds of oil tankers up and down the St. Lawrence and off the east coast, while in B.C., where we have never had a single major spill, the government, not for scientific reasons or financial reasons but for purely ideological reasons, is saying no to bringing Alberta oil to off the B.C. coast.

The private member's bill would end the tanker ban off the B.C. coast and would bring untold wealth to the country when we need it and energy sovereignty when we need it. What better way is there to fight against the Trump tariffs and the economic uncertainty than building this in Canada now?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.