Mr. Speaker, I thought I would just chime in on this fascinating debate.
I appreciated most of my hon. colleague's speech. I just want to catch a couple of points.
His colleague with whom he shared his time mentioned the northern gateway, and it is true that based on science and fact, we accepted the recommendations of the National Energy Board to impose 209 conditions on that project in order for it to proceed. In fact, 50% of those would have to be completed before shovels could be in the ground.
There is a bit of a discrepancy here. I would call it cherry-picking. They have a certain amount of enthusiasm for energy east, which has not even gone into the environmental assessment process, yet they reject the science- and fact-based position of an independent organization, the National Energy Board, on the northern gateway project.
I am just wondering if that member can reconcile what appears to be a competing claim on a project-to-project basis.