Debates of Feb. 20th, 2020

Interparliamentary Delegations

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Mr. Speaker, presenting reports from the interparliamentary delegations, I would like to report from the Canada-Europe interparliamentary delegation. Pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, three reports of Canada-Europe.

The first concerns the parliamentary mission to Portugal, in Lisbon from April 15 to 17, 2019.

The second concerns the third part of the 2019 session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and parliamentary mission to Strasbourg, France, and Rome, Italy, from June 24 to 28, 2019.

We are busy folks over here, so the third concerns the fourth part of the 2019 ordinary session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, France, from September 30 to October 4, 2019.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, this is my third day tabling reports. We have been busy at the Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group.

Pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, three reports of the Canada-United States IPG.

The first concerns the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region 29th annual summit held in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, July 21 to 25, 2019.

The second concerns the National Governors Association annual summer meeting, held in Salt Lake City, Utah, from July 24 to 26, 2019.

The third concerns the CAN/AM Border Trade Alliance conference, held in Washington, D.C., from October 6 to 8, 2019.

Criminal Code

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-211, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (assaults against health care professionals and first responders).

Mr. Speaker, I am truly honoured and humbled to be here today to introduce this bill.

In my mind, heroes do not wear capes. They wear shoulder flashes and badges that say nurse, RN, LPN, RPN, firefighter, paramedic, EMT or ambulance. They put their uniforms on every day knowing full well that they are going to experience human tragedy, and they are going to see sights and experience smells that may live with them for a lifetime.

When we call 911, we know that they will answer our call for help. They put their uniforms on every day to help us all. They fix our broken bones, they bandage our cuts, they restart our hearts and they hold our hands as we catch our last breath.

We should be doing everything we can to ensure that these altruistic individuals have the tools they require to do their jobs and to remain mentally healthy as well as physically healthy. We should be doing everything in our power to ensure that they never have to fear violence in their workplace.

Sadly, the rates of violence against our health care professionals and first responders are growing at a staggering rate. Today is about the nurse who is punched, kicked, spat at or thrown to the floor. Today is about the paramedic who is thrown down a flight of stairs, kicked and attacked while trying to save the life of a patient.

Today is about ensuring that we stand up for them because violence is not part of their job description.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Employment Insurance Act

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-212, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (special benefits).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to table a bill to make our employment insurance system work better for Canadians suffering from serious illness.

Currently, EI sickness benefits only last 15 weeks, which is simply not enough for many Canadians suffering from cancer or other diseases with long treatment periods. This legislation proposes to extend those benefits to 50 weeks, the same amount of coverage people can receive if they are laid off.

Just yesterday, the House passed a motion calling for this change, with only the governing Liberals voting against it. This bill is the way to make it happen, to pass from words to action and get relief for Canadians who are suffering now.

Given the support expressed yesterday, I will be moving later today for unanimous consent to send this bill immediately to committee so we can find a way forward as quickly as possible and help relieve the financial hardship that comes with illness for sick Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

I hope that all members in the House will support making quick progress on this important initiative.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Salmon Fishery

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition to defend wild Pacific salmon. It is a key issue for my constituents in Saanich—Gulf Islands. Indeed, they are clamouring for the House of Commons to act using the precautionary principle.

They have waited quite a long time for action based on the report that was originally commissioned by previous prime minister Stephen Harper: the commission of inquiry into the collapse of Fraser River sockeye in 2009.

There were 75 recommendations that stemmed from Mr. Justice Bruce Cohen's inquiry. They remain to be implemented. The petitioners ask for the recommendations of the Cohen commission to protect wild salmon to be implemented urgently.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Response by Natural Resources Minister to Order Paper Question

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to the intervention made by the member for Red Deer—Mountain View concerning the government's response to Question No. 50. This is a rather simple and straightforward matter.

Question No. 50 states, in part, “With regard to contracts granted by any department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity, since January 1, 2017, to the Pembina Institute”.

The government's response to Question No. 50 states:

Natural Resources Canada, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, the Canada Energy Regulator and the Northern Pipeline Agency have not granted any contracts to the Pembina Institute since January 1, 2017.

The question concerns contracts, not grants, made to the institute in question. There is a clear difference between a contract and a grant.

The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat's guide on grants, contributions and other transfer payments clearly sets out the differences between contracts and transfer payments, which include grants.

The guide states:

A procurement contract is used to obtain goods or services. It is an agreement between a federal government contracting authority and an outside party to purchase goods, provide a service or lease rental property.

A transfer...arrangement [which includes grants] is used to transfer monies or make in-kind contributions from the federal government to individuals, organizations or other levels of government...to further government policy and the department's objectives.

In conclusion, Question No. 50 asked about contracts, not grants. The difference is obvious. The government has responded accurately—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

We have a point of order, but we cannot have a point of order on a point of order. I will let the hon. member continue and then we will come back after. It is bordering on debate, and I do have some questions but I will let the hon. member finish.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, to continue, I submit that if my hon. colleague had asked a slightly different question, he would have received a different answer. Therefore, in no way has the government deliberately misled the House in its response to Question No. 50. It should now be clear to the House that this matter does not constitute a question of privilege.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

We will take that under advisement. That will help us come back to the House with a ruling on the point of privilege that was made by the hon. member for Red Deer—Mountain View. There are no other points of order.

Opposition Motion—Coastal GasLink Project

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

moved:

That the House stand in solidarity with every elected band council on the Coastal GasLink route, the majority of hereditary chiefs, and the vast majority of the Wet’suwet’en people, who support the Coastal GasLink project, and condemn the radical activists who are exploiting divisions within the Wet’suwet’en community, holding the Canadian economy hostage, and threatening jobs and opportunities in Indigenous communities.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Chilliwack—Hope.

Today is about the voices of the Wet'suwet'en. Over the last 14 days, we have heard that a lot of people are standing in solidarity with the Wet'suwet'en. Today we are bringing the real voices of the Wet'suwet'en to the floor of Parliament to ensure that the other side of the story is being told.

I could stand here and talk about the 900,000 tonnes of product that is shipped every day on our railways or the 88.1 million passengers who are moved annually on our railways. I could talk about the fact that Canada is a trading nation and our economic prosperity is predicated on our ability to produce good products and get them to market.

I could mention that over the last 14 days we have seen a lack of leadership. We have seen zero leadership from the Prime Minister. I could talk about how this has damaged our economic standing in the global market.

However, today I am going to focus on the voices of the Wet'suwet'en, the voices of the 20 first nations, the elected bands and the hereditary chiefs. Over 85% of the Wet'suwet'en voted in favour of the Coastal GasLink project, voted in favour of economic prosperity.

I live in northern British Columbia adjacent to the territories that the Coastal GasLink project is going through. I have many friends who are Wet'suwet'en. I have many friends who are Tsilhqot'in. My family is from the Tsilhqot'in First Nation. We are in northern British Columbia, where our economic opportunities are few and far between. Our forestry industry is in dire straits. We have seen job losses in the tens of thousands and 25 mill closures in the last year. When we see groups sign on to hope and economic prosperity, we want to make sure their voices are heard.

The Wet'suwet'en, whose voices have not been heard so far, are being vandalized and harassed. As a matter of fact, three of the hereditary chiefs were kicked out because they supported the Coastal GasLink project.

Today is about the 875 million dollars' worth of contracts that have been let on this project so far. Many of them are joint ventures between first nations and non-first nations. Today is about the 400 indigenous and first nations people who are employed by the Coastal GasLink project. That is over one-third of the employees. Today is about the over $1 billion of economic opportunity and partnerships the first nations have signed on for with the Coastal GasLink project.

I know that my colleagues across the way will say that we do not stand with hereditary chiefs and that we are failing to recognize the hereditary chiefs who voted against this. I will remind the House that all 20 elected bands signed up for the Coastal GasLink project. Eight of the 13 hereditary chiefs signed up for the Coastal GasLink project. There were five hereditary chiefs and their families who said no to the project.

This is a Wet'suwet'en issue. It has been said before by members on all sides of the House and by the media that this is a Wet'suwet'en issue. I agree with that. The Wet'suwet'en have to sort their house out; they have to figure this out.

What is the result of inaction? The result of no action is exactly what we are seeing today. The Prime Minister jetted all over the world for 14 days, 13 days or nine days, however long it was, and hid overseas. He is refusing to acknowledge that we are in a crisis.

If the blockades were removed today and our goods and services all of a sudden opened up, it would take not days, not weeks, but months upon months for us to recover. We are already seeing job losses with CN and VIA Rail. Yesterday VIA Rail announced 1,000 job losses, layoffs. In making that announcement, the CEO said that in its 42 years of existence she had never seen a service disruption of this magnitude.

Those lost jobs are not just non-first nation jobs. They are first nation jobs too. These workers are employed as truck drivers. They are the folks laying pipe. They are working to do whatever they can to make a better living for their families and put a roof over their heads.

In the three minutes I have left, I want to bring forward the voices of the Wet'suwet'en.

Robert Skin, who was elected to the council of the Skin Tyee First Nation, said, “With the benefit agreement that [the Skin Tyee] did sign, I see us being in a better place even within the next five years.”

He also said:

These protesters are getting one side of the story. They want to stand up with their fists in the air, but I say come and listen to us and get the other side of the story before you go out there and stop traffic and stop the railroad. All you are doing is alienating our people who are trying to put a roof over their heads and food on the table.

This is a voice I want to bring to the floor today.

I have a constituent who works at CN as a locomotive engineer. He was the first to go west from Smithers out to Prince George on a 12,000-foot coal train last Friday when the blockade came down. He asked me a question: If all these other groups are supporting the Wet'suwet'en and the Wet'suwet'en have agreed to remove the blockade to facilitate the dialogue, why did the federal government not do the same thing as the B.C. government and agree to have dialogue but only if the illegal blockades were removed first?

Chief Larry Nooski, of the Nadleh Whut'en, said:

Coastal GasLink represents a once in a generation economic development opportunity for Nadleh Whut'en First Nation. We negotiated hard...to guarantee that Nadleh people, including youth, have the opportunity to benefit directly and indirectly from the project, while at the same time, ensuring that the land and the water is protected.

First nations chiefs and leaders are on record saying that during the six years of consultation, they would go to Coastal GasLink if they had questions. They walked the lands and decided together what this project meant. Their concerns were met with answers and the company listened. These are the stories that are not being told, which is what today is all about.

Hereditary Chief Helen Michelle of Skin Tyee First Nation of the Wet'suwet'en has stated, “A lot of the protesters are not even Wet'suwet'en.... Our own people said go ahead” to Coastal GasLink. She also said, “We talked with the elders.... We talked and talked, and we kept bringing them back.... We walked the very territory where CGL is going.... We are going to give it the go-ahead.”

Hereditary Chief Theresa Tait-Day of the Wet'suwet'en nation said, “In the case of Coastal GasLink, 85% of our people said yes, we want this project.”

Marion Tiljoe Shepherd, the descendant of a hereditary chief, said, “All of these protesters don't have the right to close down railways and ships. It's not right. Go away. I want them to leave.”

Shepherd also stated:

People are starting to speak the truth about what they feel. People want to work. The chiefs are supposed to talk to the clans and the clans are supposed to make the decisions. It's not going that way.

Those are the voices of the Wet'suwet'en and they are the reason we are here today.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency)]

Madam Speaker, it is always very helpful to have quotes from the people involved in these situations, so I appreciate that.

I want to ask a non-partisan question related to the numbers. During the emergency debate the other night, a member who had been on the ground and talked to the people gave us numbers from two different Wet'suwet'en first nations. From what I remember from the debate, a majority were against the project.

Does the member have exact numbers to give us that are different from the numbers given during the emergency debate?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, these numbers are from the Wet'suwet'en themselves, the Wet'suwet'en who voted in favour of this project. The numbers I quoted today are from the Wet'suwet'en, the Wet'suwet'en voices themselves. Over 85% of the Wet'suwet'en voted in favour of this project. Eight of the 13 hereditary chiefs voted in favour of this project. Twenty first nations voted in favour of this project.

Those are the numbers I want to leave my colleague with today.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech, but I do not really see how what he said will help resolve the crisis. I think dialogue is key to resolving the crisis. In my previous life, I taught philosophy. The word “dialogue” comes from dialogos, which means two parties discerning the truth. The underlying assumption is that all participants must be recognized.

In his speech, my colleague said that, on the one hand, there are the real voices of the Wet'suwet'en and, on the other, the impostor voices of the Wet'suwet'en, those who oppose or do not recognize the Coastal GasLink project and, as my colleague stated, perhaps mistakenly, are against economic development and whatever else.

I would like my colleague to tell me what part of everything he told us just now points to a way out of this crisis.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am sorry, but perhaps I misheard my colleague.

First and foremost, I brought the voices of the Wet'suwet'en to the floor today, the voices of the Wet'suwet'en who support this project. The small group that does not support this is funded by foreign activist groups that have now staked claims in protests all over our country and fund activism. These are the economic disruptors. We have seen buses come from the U.S. with people who take part in these protests.

My colleagues do not have to believe me, but I challenge them to listen to the Wet'suwet'en voices that are on record. They should do a Google search. We all have iPads or other electronic means to source the data. Members should listen to the true voices of the Wet'suwet'en, who say they support this project. Their families support this too, but they are living in fear of vandalism and physical and verbal harassment from these groups that do not even belong to their communities.

That is the reality. That is what is happening on the ground in our communities in northern British Columbia. That is what I want people to understand.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, what is happening on the ground is that the future leader of the Conservative Party, Peter MacKay, is boasting about vigilante action and having a pickup truck threaten indigenous people. We see the footage of the swearing, insults and degradation. It is the same kinds of comments we hear from the mob, who say the bums need to get a job.

Does my friend support Peter MacKay's call for vigilante action? If that is the case, this member is going to see a lot of trouble across this country from the actions and language his party is promoting.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I do not think anybody on this side of the House is advocating for violence or trying to incite violence. If my hon. colleague, who I respect greatly, had listened to my comments, he would know that I talked specifically about the dialogue that needs to take place within the Wet'suwet'en and the need to respect the words of all Wet'suwet'en.

We need to make sure we hear the voices of the Wet'suwet'en who support this project and the 20 first nations that support economic prosperity. They support lifting their communities out of economic despair. They support opportunity for their youth, not just for today but in the future. We need to listen to those voices. That is the only way we will be able to move this project forward.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members they have to be in their seats if they want to get up and ask questions.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Chilliwack—Hope.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Madam Speaker, this might surprise some of my colleagues, but this is my first speech in this Parliament. Therefore, I want to take a moment to thank my family, volunteers, staff and the people of Chilliwack—Hope for returning me here to the House of Commons for the third time. I thank them for that honour.

We are here for an important debate today. We have a motion calling on the House to stand in solidarity with the Wet'suwet'en people, the majority of whom have indicated their support for the Coastal GasLink project.

I want to start with a quote from the Prime Minister. When he was in opposition, he went around the country and stated, “Governments might grant permits, but only communities can grant permission.” Of course, he has not lived up to that. One can ask many communities along the way. In this case, the Government of British Columbia has granted the permits. After an independent, robust scientific review, it has agreed that this project can go forward. The government of John Horgan and the NDP in British Columbia have supported this project. The community that will be affected has also granted its permission. The 20 elected band councils, which is every band council along the route, have voted and indicated that, after many years of consultations with the company and the Crown, they are on board with this project because of the economic opportunity it presents, the respect that has been shown to them by the company and the process that has been undertaken over a number of years. The 20 elected band councils support the project. That is not in dispute.

My colleague from Cariboo—Prince George quoted a hereditary chief who said that 85% of the people in the Wet'suwet'en territory support the project. The majority of the hereditary chiefs support the project. The hereditary chiefs of the Wet'suwet'en Nation obviously have some matters they need to resolve in their own house. There has been conflict among the families. That is never something we want to see, but it is the reality. We are in a situation now where the hereditary chiefs disagree on how we should move forward. I believe the reporting on this is inaccurate. There are constant references to protests in support of the hereditary chiefs of the Wet'suwet'en people, but not all of the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs. The majority of them are in support of this project. There are three hereditary chiefs who are women and other hereditary chiefs have tried to strip them of their title for supporting the project. Obviously, there is an internal debate and dialogue that needs to continue with the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs and their families. However, to suggest that somehow all the hereditary chiefs are opposed to this and are in conflict with the elected band councils is simply incorrect.

The motion also calls on the House to condemn the radical activists who have tried to exploit those divisions and tried to use the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs to advance their own goals. Sometimes people do not like that kind of verbiage. They do not like terms like “radical activists”. However, when a group of people go to the home of the democratically elected premier of the Province of British Columbia, blockade his house and threaten to take him hostage, I would say they are radical activists. When there are people who look a court injunction in the face and say they do not care about the court and ignore its decision, where does that stop? That is the real concern here. To me, that is the difference. In Canada, we all agree that when we have disputes on matters of law, the arbiter is the court. There are times when I do not agree with the decisions of the court. Sometimes I do not agree with the decisions of the highest court in this land.

I live in Canada. I am a citizen of this country. As a society, we all have that unspoken agreement that we will abide by the decisions of the courts. We cannot have a situation now where we pick and choose which court decisions we will follow and which ones we will ignore, and nor can the government. That is what has happened here over the last two weeks.

We have had numerous court injunctions granted against protesters who are blockading rail, who are causing harm to our economy, who are quite frankly threatening the health and safety of Canadians. It is-22°C with the wind chill here today. It is not too warm across the country except in my home province of British Columbia. There is a shortage of propane. There is a shortage of home heating oil. There is a shortage of chlorine and chemicals that we use to keep our water systems clean. These are all at risk, and yet the government is ignoring it.

I noticed how the Prime Minister's tone changed quite a lot yesterday after he saw the public opinion poll and heard from his own caucus members. He finally admitted that the blockades were illegal, because the courts have declared them illegal. The law is being broken with the illegal activities that are taking place, such as trespassing on the rail lines, etc. Now we have contempt of court injunctions.

When a government refuses to state in the House of Commons, or anywhere, that it believes the court is right, that it believes that court decisions should be followed, that it believes that court injunctions should be upheld and enforced, we see why more and more protesters choose more and more sites.

The Prime Minister, through his inaction and his weak leadership, is emboldening these protesters to do things, like show up at the home of the B.C. premier and threaten to take him under citizen's arrest, like blockade propane, home heating oil and chlorine for our water cleaning systems. All of this is apparently not worthy of condemnation by the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister has created this situation. He has repeatedly said there is no relationship more important than our relationship with indigenous Canadians, and then for four plus years he has failed to get the job done. In fact, he sent quite different signals to indigenous Canadians, particularly indigenous British Columbians.

People in my area remember well Canada's first indigenous justice minister being turfed out of cabinet and the Liberal Party for daring to stand up to the Prime Minister, and his callous remarks during a Liberal fundraiser where donors paid $1,600. When a group of protesters arrived from Grassy Narrows, he said to a young indigenous woman “thank you for your donation”. That is the relationship that he has fostered with indigenous people in this country. He is reaping what he has sowed.

We have a Prime Minister who spent the first 10 days of this crisis out of the country, spending taxpayers' money, going around Africa and meeting with people who do not share the values that he trumpets here at home, trying to get their votes for a temporary seat on the United Nations Security Council. He promoted the oil and gas industries in Africa while at the same time he talked about phasing out ours. Then he bowed and scraped to the Iranian foreign minister, bowing a couple of times, smiling and shaking hands with someone whose regime is responsible for shooting 57 Canadians out of the sky.

The Prime Minister cancelled his trip to Barbados, so I guess we should give him kudos for that. He finally realized the crisis we have here, but he has not done anything about it. He will not even call these blockades illegal. He will not even stand up for the court injunctions.

We have to decide here today whether we are going to stand with the forces that ignore court injunctions or whether we are going to stand up for the rule of law and demand that the Prime Minister stand up and say that the court injunctions should be enforced and the rule of law should be enforced and upheld.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, literally as the member was speaking, there was breaking news that the RCMP is signalling that it is interested in withdrawing in an attempt to have an open dialogue and discussion.

I have a simple question for the member, if I could just get over top of the heckling.

Does the member agree, as the Minister of Public Safety has signalled he does, that this is a good strategy of the RCMP or does he think that the RCMP should continue to stay there and show its force?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think that the RCMP should enforce the court injunction. It can decide how it does that, but it should get a signal from the government that we expect court injunctions to be enforced and upheld. However those in the RCMP decide, in their wisdom, that they want to proceed, I have no problem with that, but I do have a problem when we have a government that is signalling that it does not believe that court injunctions should be enforced. The RCMP will make its own decisions, as it has, but it should be given the direction that the government expects that court injunctions will be enforced and upheld.

While I am on feet responding to the member's question, I would like to say that, clearly, we understand that the member, through some of the things that he has done over the last number days and weeks, such as sponsoring advertising calling for the shutdown of various energy projects, does not mind this kind of activity because it shuts down the energy sector, which is something he is in favour of. We are obviously opposed to that.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague, and I share his concern about the economic impact of this crisis.

I would like to know if my colleague is in favour of the Bloc Québécois's proposal to set up a war room. Given the significant economic impact, we should also consider temporarily suspending the Coastal GasLink project—just temporarily—until the crisis is resolved.

Would my colleague agree with that proposal?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Madam Speaker, no I would not agree with that approach. In fact, I would be more in favour of the approach of Premier Legault, who has gone to court for an injunction and said that as soon as the injunction is granted, he will be calling on the police to enforce it.

We cannot allow it when people are simply opposing the projects, and not because of the Wet'suwet'en people. Let us be clear about that. They oppose oil and gas development, and they are using the hereditary chiefs of the Wet'suwet'en people to advance their own agenda. We do not agree with cancelling, delaying or suspending projects to reward those who are simply looking to shut down the Canadian energy sector. Instead, we believe in the rule of law. We believe that court injunctions should be enforced.