Debates of Feb. 22nd, 2016

Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, component (e) of the Liberal motion talks about welcoming tens of thousands of Syrian refugees to Canada. I note that the government in its campaign platform talked about 25,000 Syrian refugees.

I am wondering if the member opposite can tell the House what tens of thousands of Syrian refugees means in terms of quantity, and if the government intends to raise the Syrian refugee target from over 25,000 to its higher target what that number is.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the reason that particular component, paragraph (e) of the motion, is not specific is that I think the hon. member is forgetting to separate the difference between government-sponsored refugees, of which the government has committed to bringing in 25,000, and refugees who come from different categories, including the blended category and privately sponsored refugees. In those particular categories, there may be a somewhat indeterminate number, depending on the generosity of Canadians.

It is my understanding, having spoken to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, that it is the government's estimate that we are looking at somewhere between 35,000 to 50,000 potential refugees from this particular region, when you include these three different categories.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate what my colleague from Scarborough—Agincourt said when he urged members to adopt a civil tone in this debate. We are talking about something very important that affects the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces.

Although there are three parties in the House with their own views on how to defeat ISIL, and although all members of the House have a lot of respect for the men and women of the armed forces, we must still keep this debate respectful. That is what I will certainly try to do today.

I had the opportunity last year to go with then foreign affairs minister, John Baird, to Iraq. I am eternally grateful to Mr. Baird for bringing me along, because I think it gave me some insights that I would not otherwise have.

We went to Baghdad and met with the president of Iraq and the foreign minister. We talked about the political landscape that currently exists in Iraq today. We then went up to Erbil and the following day went to the front lines and met some of the peshmerga troops who were holding the line at that point. We were informed that ISIS was a couple of kilometres away, although we did not have any encounters or see them fire at us.

Later in the day, we had an opportunity to go to a refugee camp. It was called Baharka. It was a new refugee camp. There were about 4,000 refugees there, many of whom had fled from Mosul. Mosul has been mentioned quite a bit today. This was at the time when about 600,000 or 700,000 people had fled under the onslaught of ISIS and then crossed into the Kurdish part of Iraq, seeking refuge. It was truly a desperate situation. There was this huge influx of people with no place to take care of them. They were being housed in the schools, which, unfortunately, were about to open a few days later.

It truly was a picture of the situation that currently exists in Iraq. It certainly was an education for me, in the sense that I realized that, yes, our first aim is that we must defeat Daesh. We know that cannot be done by any other method than Iraqi ground troops moving in an offensive manner toward ISIS at some point when they are ready, and defeating them. Yes, they will be assisted by air strikes and by munitions and other other resources provided to them, including training. Ultimately, however, they will have to advance on ISIS and defeat it if Iraq is to achieve its aim.

I should mention, Mr. Speaker, that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Ottawa South.

That is the complexity of the situation.

Our assessment, in the Liberal government, is that we must contribute in an important way to preparing the soldiers who will ultimately be advancing on ISIS.

Whilst we supported the Conservative government when it first sent 69 troops in for a 30-day period, if I recall properly, in September 2014, indicating that we did support the concept of training, we feel now that increased emphasis must be put upon training. Yes, air strike missions will continue to occur and there are many allies in the partnership, the coalition of 65 countries, that are going to be involved with that.

It disturbed me a little when the member for Battle River—Crowfoot mentioned the fact that our CF-18s were not there, but almost seemed to suggest that perhaps there would not be air cover there to support our Canadian troops when they are involved with the training of Kurdish fighters.

I do not know if I was imagining it, but I had the feeling that perhaps the member was saying that since we are no longer there, perhaps that air cover is not going to be provided. I want to reassure Canadians that air cover will be provided to Canadians by many of the other partners in the coalition. Let me make that absolutely crystal clear. It is not a good thing to create the impression that the possibility exists. I want to clear that up right away.

That is the role we have decided to take on, and it is a big role. We will be increasing the number of soldiers who will be involved in the training role. It is an important role and one that will ultimately bear fruit, so that one day ISIS will be pushed out of Mosul and other parts of Iraq and be totally defeated.

The second part of this is what happens afterward. How does a country like Iraq put itself together after addressing the issue of ISIS? Iraq is a complex country. It has Kurds, Shia Muslims, Sunni Muslims, and minorities like the Yazidis and the Chaldeans. We met a lot of Chaldeans in Irbil, who had fled from Mosul. It is not easy to organize government in such a way that one is able to live in harmony, if I may call it that, in a country like Iraq. It is a big task from that point of view, and Canada can contribute in terms of helping on the issues of governance and how one would address a multi-ethnic, multi-religious society. It is a big task, but Canada can contribute.

The other thing is the refugees themselves. These refugees were living in the worst possible conditions with a terrible winter coming at them. One day these refugees will hopefully be able to move back to Mosul. We hope that these refugees are not so wounded by the horrors that they have had to live through, including the conditions in those camps where they are seeking refuge, that they will not be able to rebuild their lives. That points to the vital importance of focusing also on the humanitarian side.

I looked at the refugee camp in Zaatari in northern Jordan the same year. These people want to go back and resume their lives in Iraq. However, they must not be so wounded or destroyed by the experience that they have gone through that they are not able to do it. Therefore, humanitarian aid is important, so that we can try to make the conditions in those camps as humane as possible, so that when they are able to pick up their lives later on, it will be because they were given the necessary attention.

We are taking a multi-dimensional approach. We are also in Jordan and Lebanon. We are increasing intelligence gathering. We are taking a holistic approach to this. Canadians recognize the fact that the approach we are taking with respect to focusing on training Iraqi soldiers and helping in the camps is the approach that ultimately will ensure Iraq can become a stable country in due course.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has had a distinguished career outside of this place, and he brings that experience here with him.

Could my colleague explain what this mission against ISIS would look like if every country involved in the coalition determined that it does not do combat well? If every country currently taking the fight directly to ISIS said it would do other important things but would not do combat because its electorate does not support it or it feels it does not excel at combat, what would the fight against ISIS look like? If every country made the same decision that the Liberal government has just made to withdraw from the combat mission, to step back from the fight, what would the fight against ISIS look like?

I have heard a lot of members talk about working in concert with our coalition partners and doing different things to optimize the mission. Could my colleague name one ally, one head of state, one head of government from any one of our coalition partners, who asked Canada to stop contributing to the air strikes?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are some 65 partners in the coalition, and in a partnership that has the same ultimate purpose, we all get together and decide who is going to do what. There is no question that the role Canada is about to take on certainly comprises risk, but there are plenty of resources available with respect to air strike capability.

We have talked with the other members of the coalition. We told them that we learned quite a bit from our 12 years' experience in Afghanistan in terms of training soldiers, and it is something that we do particularly well. Our partners said it is a good idea for Canada to do that, because that is part of the task that lies ahead of us.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister to expand on his last point. In terms of Canada's engagement in Afghanistan, there were many derivatives that came out of it. One of them is that our Canadian Forces learned a great deal that could be used as experience for what is taking place in the current zone in the Middle East.

My comment for my colleague is this. Not every country needs to be engaged in the bombing, as he has quite eloquently pointed out. That is why we have a global coalition there. However, based on the experiences we have gained as a nation and particularly as a forces, by tripling the training forces allocation, in fact Canada is helping in a very real tangible way in combatting terrorism.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I come from a military family. My father was an army officer for his entire career, so I have lived on military bases. I know the military ethos, and I know that our Canadian army and our Canadian soldiers are very good. They are the best in the world. I will say that without any hesitation whatsoever. They do have a lot of experience in terms of the skill in training other military, and they are doing a great job at the moment with the peshmerga in the Kurdish part of Iraq. It is a wise decision to increase that resource so that we strengthen the peshmerga even more, so they are in a better position, as I said in my speech, to ultimately themselves defeat Daesh or ISIS on the ground.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the minister, who has been on deployment and served in the military.

Do our soldiers not want that same respect the minister just mentioned? They are on a dangerous mission. This is a combat zone. Should these men and women not have all possible options to protect themselves? Why does the minister want to make the mission less effective and at the same time increase the risk for our soldiers by sending over more of them, without effective air strikes?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, those kinds of comments really bother me. The member is practically suggesting that now that the six CF-18s are no longer there, there will be no air support for our troops.

There is a coalition. Many other countries are capable of conducting air strikes. I believe that we will be protected, as we were before. We may not be protected by Canadian fighter jets, but we will be protected by fighter jets from other coalition countries.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been following the debate very closely, in particular the divergence in points of view on all sides of the House.

I want to commend my colleagues here on all sides who have elevated the debate and who are keeping front and centre in their minds that we are really here speaking on behalf of 35 million Canadians, and that we have a special and perhaps even higher obligation, to make sure that we keep in mind we are also here because there are lives at stake: members of our Canadian Forces who are dedicated, members of our diplomatic corps, members of our international humanitarian assistance organizations and departments. They, in my view, deserve special recognition and treatment throughout this debate, and I think they have been getting it.

I want to pick up on the theme last mentioned by my colleague, the Minister of Transport. For Canadians who are watching this evening, let us just situate this debate for a second in the context of our Canadian role. As the Minister of Transport stressed, there are over 60 countries and partners involved in the coalition.

Let us situate our role in that coalition context. We are working together. Progressive, enlightened forces, countries, jurisdictions have come together to deal with a very serious threat. However, it is important for Canadians to remember that each and every one of those partners in those organizations that are involved, those countries, have taken on separate roles.

What we have is a continuum. It is a continuum of responsibilities shared amongst partners, like it was during the First World War, the Second World War, and other skirmishes that have since followed. For example, for Canadians who are watching, they might want to turn to the Internet and do some research, get the list of the 60-plus coalition partners and see what their specific roles are. Israel, for example, is focusing exclusively on intelligence aid. Germany is focusing exclusively on military aid, and so on and so forth.

As a sovereign nation, it is important for all of us to remember that we have taken a position. We have communicated it clearly, and we are having an open and objective debate about it for several days.

Of all the elements of the motion that we are debating here, the one, perhaps, of which I am most proud is the following. It is towards the end of the motion where we ask the House to:

....express its appreciation and pride to the members of the CAF, diplomatic and intelligence personnel for their participation in the fight against terrorism, to Canadian humanitarian workers for their efforts to provide critical support to conflict-affected populations, and reconfirm our commitment to our allies in the coalition against ISIL....

The sum is always greater than its parts. We know that. We have pulled together.

To be personal for a moment, I am reminded often of a maxim that my parents used to use with their 10 children. They used to say, “You have a choice in life, siblings. You can either pull apart and feel like you're 5, or you can pull together and feel like you are 20.” My mother, in her wisdom, would say, “Pick a door”.

I think here, we have picked a door. We have said we are going to co-operate fulsomely, taking on very specific, very important foundational roles with respect to this most important of missions. We are broadening. We are improving. We are redefining our contribution to that very effort to combat ISIL by better leveraging Canadian expertise.

Each and every member of the coalition is doing the same. Each and every member has comparative advantage and comparative strengths. Thus it is in a Canadian context. We are looking, and we are finding where Canada is best able to dig down deep and provide the best backstopping, the best contributions to this combined effort. When we listen to some voices in this House, particularly from the official opposition, Canadians would think this was a unilateral effort by one sovereign nation called Canada. It is not.

The plea I make to Canadians is to dig down deep and understand that there are 60-plus partners in this global effort and that under the judicious choices of our government, Canada has picked carefully of where it will bring its expertise to bear to deal with this scourge called ISIL.

We are going to be making a meaningful contribution to the global coalition's fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, but we are also going to strengthen the ability of regional governments and local authorities to defend themselves and rebuild over the long term. Why? It is because if all is lost, it is all for naught. It can be all for naught if we do not look out, if we do not cast out and backtrack and backcast, so to speak, and ask how we can get to a place of political stability.

Ultimately, the solution in the region will be and must be political. We know that. If we were to ask each and every one of the 60-plus coalition partners what its preference is, whether it would rather be in the coalition and actively prosecuting this war or rather be trying to find an immediate political solution, I dare say, speaking freely, perhaps presumptively, on behalf of all of those partners, that each and every one of them would prefer finding a political solution as soon as possible. No country or government takes pride in putting the members of its own forces in harm's way. This is not the first choice.

The first and ultimate choice will have to be finding a political solution, and the whole-of-government approach that we have brought to bear as a series of building blocks, in pincer movement with our partners, is precisely to take us to a place of good governance where we can rebuild infrastructure, promote the rule of law, foster democracy, and move on with bringing a number of troubled and torn states to join us in the 21st century, in the world of modern post-21st century states, so they too can participate fully in international trading, international peace, international environmental efforts, education, health care, and all the things that make a society a civilized one.

Some of the specifics will include our tripling of the size of our training force in northern Iraq, and significantly increasing our intelligence-gathering resources. We are making a multi-year commitment to provide $1.1 billion in humanitarian and development assistance as part of what I called a moment ago a comprehensive strategy, which also balances security and stability.

As I said a moment ago, it bears repeating that the solution to the crisis in the region must be, first, foremost, and always, political. That is where we have to keep our mind focused. That is where we have to keep our eye on the ball. It is not about an all-or-nothing proposition when we hear members of the official opposition clamour that this is an all-or-nothing proposition. They are wrong and they know it.

In fact, I think they should join us in supporting this broad, multi-pronged, whole-of-government approach to be able to bring to bear Canada's best: our background in training and teaching. I have often said in my political career that the most important investment a country can make anywhere is in lifelong learning. Training and learning are going to be foundational for progress to achieve that political outcome in the region and around the world. Our humanitarian assistance will continue to target the most vulnerable, including children and survivors of sexual and gender-based violence.

This is precisely the kind of combined effort that draws on the very best of Canada and Canadians: members of our Canadian Forces, members involved in humanitarian assistance, our diplomatic skills, the rule of law, good governance, and judicial training. Those are the hallmarks of the contributions we are making, and I think they are going to go a long way in helping to achieve the outcome we all desire.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Ottawa South will have five minutes of questions the next time the debate takes place.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Canadian Coast Guard

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on January 29, when I asked the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans if the Liberal government was committed to keeping the Comox marine communications and traffic services centre open, his answer was, “Through modern technology, we have been able to ensure that no communication gaps will be in place and we will still maintain that safety”.

Well, that did not answer my question. Will the parliamentary secretary tell us right now, today, what the government intends to do with the Comox MCTS centre?

People on the ground, experts, and mariners are telling us that it is irresponsible for the Liberals to continue with this Conservative plan. This plan includes no risk assessment and absolutely no consultation with stakeholders. It was a bad plan. Is the cabinet minister's decision-making process going to undergo the same shortfalls?

On this side of the House, the NDP has worked tirelessly to keep the Comox MCTS Coast Guard station open. I am proud to bring this issue back to Ottawa and ensure that the safety of our coastal waters and the public is not at risk.

The NDP proposed to study this potential closure at the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, and I am very happy to hear that the committee has agreed.

Will the Liberal government now consult with stakeholders? Will the Liberals conduct risk assessments associated with the potential closure? Will they wait for the report from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans before making a decision?

There is a fallacy in the minister's talking points that needs to be addressed. The modern technology is not new technology. It is not working properly, and there are gaps. How can the minister claim there are no gaps when we know that just last Thursday Prince Rupert had a short outage. Over the weekend, the Coast Guard's newly modernized Victoria MCTS centre suffered a radio and radar outage, leaving the Strait of Georgia, Howe Sound, and Vancouver harbour unprotected.

Under the Liberal cuts, both Prince Rupert and Victoria would be the two remaining centres serving all British Columbians. Does he realize that lives are at risk? It is beyond belief.

The audio gaps are not the only problem. The audio quality of the new technology is worse than the 30-year-old technology. Could the parliamentary secretary tell us if the minister or he himself has had the opportunity to listen to the echo effect? It is inaudible. What about maydays, now in inaudible maydays?

The Liberals are ensuring that the Canadian Coast Guard is blind and deaf. When will the minister stop the planned closure of the Comox centre?

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries]

Mr. Speaker, the Coast Guard's marine communications and traffic services centres provide monitoring, distress response and maritime safety services and broadcast maritime safety information such as weather conditions and navigational warnings. They also screen vessels entering Canadian waters and manage marine traffic.

The Canadian Coast Guard is modernizing its technologies and consolidating its marine communications and traffic services centres across the country. As a result of technological innovations in communications monitoring equipment, the centres are now more reliable and will help our officials provide vital safety services in a more efficient manner.

The marine communications and traffic services centres are using the same network of radio and radar towers across Canada, but are taking advantage of 21st century communications technology. The new equipment has replaced obsolete systems dating back to the 1980s, which had become increasingly difficult to maintain because of their age. The Coast Guard has successfully modernized 11 centres, and the new systems are operating as planned.

Even though there are fewer centres, the staff at those centres spend more of their time directly serving Canadians and mariners, and they spend less time on the tasks and duties required under the old system. Staff at the Coast Guard's marine communications and traffic services centres are qualified and competent, and the centres are staffed permanently year-round. The accredited officers receive intensive training at the Canadian Coast Guard College. Centres do not need to be physically located on the coast because officers at the centres use information gathered by radio, radar, and other equipment and systems.

Officers also acquire local knowledge during training at the centres. In other words, modernizing and consolidating our marine communications and traffic services centres has enabled the Coast Guard to adopt a 21st-century approach to coordinating rescue operations and marine safety communications that is comparable to what other developed countries do.

Modernizing our marine communications and traffic services centres is like going from a rotary dial phone to a smart phone. Modernizing our technology helps maintain these services, which is critical. All components have been thoroughly tested, and Canadian Coast Guard experts have confidence in the new systems, their locations, and their capacity to serve Canadians and mariners while ensuring their safety and security.

In keeping with government commitments to transparency and marine safety, I am pleased that the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans has signalled its intention to study the planned consolidation of the MCTS Comox centre.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, why is the Liberal government keeping our coastal community, mariners, and this Parliament in the dark about its intentions in Comox?

The Liberal government promised change. I think we may have different definitions. Have the Liberals considered consulting stakeholders?

I'm very curious to understand the member opposite's enthusiasm with the new technology. I have provided two very specific examples of recent gaps that render a large part of our B.C. coast unprotected and at risk.

Is the minister aware of the echo issue? I believe it is in our best interest to keep the Comox MCTS centre open. However, let me finish by saying that I want to work constructively with this government to study this issue, and I feel the results will speak for themselves.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Coast Guard's priorities will always be the safety of mariners and the protection of the marine environment. The Coast Guard is working on improving its marine communications and traffic services centres in Canada.

I had the opportunity to visit some of these centres during my last trip with the minister to Atlantic Canada and Quebec. I can assure the House that these centres are equipped with state-of-the-art technology. We met with employees at these centres, and they showed us what they could do. These employees were very competent and well trained, and we are convinced that these centres meet the current needs of mariners and those who travel these waterways.

Everything is rigorously tested at every stage of the modernization work, and our officers are perfectly trained to provide these services.

Natural Resources

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today, and I hope to get some clearer answers on a question that I asked in early February.

When the Liberals were initially elected, they said during their platform and then immediately afterward that they were going to be making changes to the National Energy Board approval process. However, they recognized quickly that there was a lot of clarity needed. Then the government announced what it called transition steps. It made that announcement, I believe in late January.

Early in February, in the transition steps that the government announced, there were five guiding principles as well as ministerial representation. It became clear within the first week that what the Liberals had intended to make a more clear process got even more confusing for proponents.

I directed my question to the Minister of Natural Resources. However, it was the Minister of Environment and Climate Change who answered and did not provide a very clear answer, not only to clearing up the transition process but to recognizing that by making it more cloudy it was creating two problems. There was no further clarity as far as what pipeline proponents and other energy infrastructure proponents would need to do. That then sent a signal to investors, potential money that would be invested in Canada, that there was uncertainty. When investors are looking around the world, they usually have a very short time and window to place that money. If Canada does not look like a place where they can invest and have certainty, they put their money elsewhere.

Almost a month ago, I asked the minister for clarity on the five principles. To date, we have not seen any clarity. We are not sure, and proponents are not sure, when it comes, for example, to upstream GHG measurements—which will now be included in the assessment—what the number is that either cabinet will be looking for, or the assessment itself will deem to be appropriate. Nobody knows that.

The Department of Environment and Climate Change is doing the assessment, but the proponents are not told the goal that they need to get to in order for cabinet to say it is an acceptable or unacceptable GHG limit. That is one of the answers that I know we are looking for clarity on, and I know proponents are also looking for clarity.

Again, I said there were five principles that were announced. Of those five principles, are they all weighted the same? For example, is community engagement weighted the same as indigenous peoples meaningful consultation? Will GHG upstream emissions be given more weight? Of the five principles, are they weighted differently?

As members can see, there is a lot of confusion. Proponents are saying that there is no clarity. It is causing a lot of problems in terms of jobs and job creators in the natural resources sector, not just oil and gas. We are looking for some clarity on that.

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend, the member for Portage—Lisgar, for the opportunity to discuss an issue of such importance to the people of Canada.

This government understands the importance of resources to the strength of our economy and the quality of our lives.

The natural resources industry accounts for 20% of our country's GDP and employ tens of thousands of Canadians in every part of every province. It generates almost two-thirds of investments and exports. Natural resource sectors are also major employers of indigenous Canadians and hold the potential to bring generational change to the prospects and prosperity of those communities.

While Canadians understand the importance of resources to our economy and their own daily lives, they have lost faith in the way we evaluate major projects like pipelines.

This government is committed to doing things differently, to recognizing both the importance of economic growth and the imperative of environmental responsibility. Canadians understand this. They understand the importance of natural resources to our economy. They know that they create jobs and spur investment. However, they have lost faith in the way we assess those projects. They have come to believe that the scales have been tipped too far in one direction.

Our government shares those concerns. That is why we announced a transition process that will help restore the confidence of Canadians. That process is based on five clear principles.

First, no project proponent will have to return to the starting line. Second, decisions will be based on science, traditional indigenous knowledge, and other relevant evidence. Third, the views of the public and affected communities will be sought and considered. Fourth, indigenous peoples will be consulted and, where appropriate, their rights and interests will be accommodated. Fifth, direct and upstream greenhouse gas emissions will be assessed.

Each of these principles is aimed at a common objective, restoring public trust, because little can be achieved without it.

As the Prime Minister has said, “Governments issue permits, but only communities can grant permission.” If we are going to build the infrastructure to move our resources to overseas markets, Canadians need to have confidence in the environmental review process and know that it is fair and open, and guided by science.

The hon. member opposite served in a government that did everything in its power to smooth the way for pipeline construction with very little to show for it. That was because in its rush to try to get pipelines built, it left out the most important factor: public confidence in the process.

Our government has no intention of repeating those mistakes. The process we have set out takes us down a different path, which is the right path, the path of properly weighing environmental concerns, deeply engaging Indigenous communities, and listening to the input of Canadians.

The previous government's record on pipelines is one of failure, frustration, and fear. Our government will engage Canadians in a process where trust is rebuilt, confidence is restored, and progress is made.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments. I truly hope that we will see Canadian pipelines built as the end result. I know Canadian pipelines are the safest in the world. If oil is to be used around the world, we on this side believe it should be Canadian oil that is responsibly extracted and transported.

There was some contradiction in that the Minister of Environment and Climate Change said that the government would be working to depoliticize the process. I know the Minister of Natural Resources talked a bit more about it being politicized. If it is based on the recommendations of the National Energy Board, and if the government listens to and follows those recommendations, then it would be a good system that would be in place. The National Energy Board it not broken. It is known as the most robust regulatory system in the world. Therefore, I would encourage the government to follow those recommendations.

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has expressed her opposition to our government's plan. However, what she has not explained is which elements of the plan she disagrees with. Is she saying that projects currently in process should start over again under new rules? Is she suggesting that decisions about pipeline projects should not be based on science, or that we should ignore indigenous knowledge? Does she believe that the views of the public and affected communities should not be sought and considered? Is my colleague across the aisle arguing that the rights of indigenous peoples should not be accommodated? Is she seriously suggesting that upstream greenhouse gas emissions should not be assessed when evaluating a pipeline project?

Perhaps the hon. member will want to reconsider her position and support the plan this government has proposed. I would very much welcome her support.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is not present to raise the matter for which adjournment notice has been given. Accordingly, the notice is deemed withdrawn.

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:58 p.m.)