House of Commons Hansard #20 of the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was wet'suwet'en.

Topics

Opposition Motion—Coastal GasLink ProjectBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK

Yes, the Green Party leader.

People want to do another one, and another one, and another one after that, because there are no consequences. They think it is fun. Then they put it on a crowdfunding site in the U.S. and get paid to do it. We have seen that happen. This can be happening at this point in time.

What is the goal of these protesters? The Liberals have to look at that very seriously as a government, and ask if this is a real issue of reconciliation.

For some of them, for a small group, maybe it is. However, they are being abused by all of the other people who actually have no skin in the game. It is not their issue. They just want to stop development at all costs.

How do we deal with people like that? We enforce the rule of law. If we do not enforce the rule of law now, what prevents them from cranking it up later, and more and more going into the future?

I am very concerned that if we do not do things properly and fairly right now, if we do not deal with these issues in an appropriate fashion right now, it is going to lead to even more chaos as we get into the summer.

I will go back to the $300-billion worth of goods every year. If I am a company owner who is thinking about building a plant in Canada, and think that Canada is a pretty good place and Canadians are good people, but I see in an article that Canada has protests going on and it has shut down its rail lines, it tells me that if I build in Canada I may not be able to get propane for my plant.

That is what we are telling the world right now. As folks in Canada are trying to sell investment opportunities in Canada to corporations or other companies, business people are asking why they would do that, when there is no rule of law in Canada. It is gone. The Prime Minister is not enforcing the law, and he is very weak.

I was in a committee last night where we had a witness whose business has seven facilities across Canada building IPEX pipes for plumbing and electrical goods, to run the cable through it. At the end of the testimony, I asked him how things were going. He said that four out of the company's seven plants are now shutting down because they cannot get the raw goods to make the pipes. That is one facility.

I had wings with a friend last night. He was wearing his glasses and I asked him why he was wearing them. He said he could not get contact lenses. He could not find contacts in Ottawa, so he was wearing his glasses.

We are starting to see what is going to happen here unless the folks across the aisle start to deal with this in a serious manner. Our economy is shutting down and there is going to be a tremendous cost.

Even if we were to end the blockades today, it will take time to get things going. I hear about vandalism to rails out on the west coast. Before a train can cross a bridge, that bridge is now going to have to be fully inspected. The consequences of what these folks have done in just more than two weeks are pretty serious. They are going to last quite a while.

Another thing I want to highlight is that the grain sector has had its challenges in shipping its product around the global market. I can remember having debates with CN and CP about them not delivering on time. I remember times when there were 50-plus ships sitting in the port of Vancouver. We are at 40 now, and 10 in Prince Rupert. A purchaser of Canadian grain, from Japan let us say, who needs just-in-time delivery is going to get tired of us in Canada and is going to buy from the U.S.

That is what is happening here. That is the breakdown. There are implications for this country of more and more unemployment and families not being able to pay their bills. It is a domino effect. The dominoes have started to fall, and it is not a pretty ending. This could have been stopped. It could have been prevented.

When we go to communities and say we are going to do this and this for them, when we raise expectations this high and then do nothing or very little, what do we expect? That is what the government has done. The reality is now Canadians are going to pay for it, and that is very disappointing.

There is no reason Canadians should be paying for this. This should have been dealt with a long time ago. It should never have gotten to this point, and it is sad that it has.

Opposition Motion—Coastal GasLink ProjectBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

Hull—Aylmer Québec

Liberal

Greg Fergus LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and to the Minister of Digital Government

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your patience, since I am asking every speaker the same question. I think it is important, and I have rarely gotten an answer from the Conservatives on this.

My question is the same. Does the member truly believe that using force to resolve this situation will lead to lasting peace in this country?

Opposition Motion—Coastal GasLink ProjectBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

Conservative

Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK

Mr. Speaker, I talked about this. This is not a Ghandi-style protest. This is totally different from what a protest should be, if those involved have what they are protesting at heart.

Do you have to use force? Maybe you do some days. I hate it. I do. I hate that we are going to have to possibly use force. That is because you did not do your job to begin with. You could have nipped it in the bud a year ago, maybe two years ago, but you let it go on and on, and it has gotten to a level where now you have to use force. That is not the RCMP's fault; that is your fault. How did you let it get this bad?

Opposition Motion—Coastal GasLink ProjectBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

I remind the hon. member to direct his speech to the Chair, and to use the third person. It works just fine.

The hon. Minister of Natural Resources on a point of order.

Response by Natural Resources Minister to Order Paper QuestionPrivilegeGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

St. John's South—Mount Pearl Newfoundland & Labrador

Liberal

Seamus O'Regan LiberalMinister of Natural Resources

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to unreservedly apologize to the House and to the member for Red Deer—Mountain View, to the hon. government House leader and to the Parliamentary Secretary to the government House leader, with respect to the handling of the governmental response to Order Paper question Q-50.

The government response from Natural Resources Canada to Q-50 is incorrect, and for that I apologize. Not only that, my office provided information to the government House leader's office to prepare a response to the question of privilege raised on February 19 by my colleague from Red Deer—Mountain View.

The information was provided and vetted by my department, which stated that the reason that a nil response was provided to Q-50 was that the contracts with Pembina Institute were grants, not contracts. I now know that a mistake was made, and this information was false.

In giving the government House leader's office that information, I have undermined its efforts to clear the record, and I am very sorry for that.

I want to correct the record. I will table a revised, correct and accurate response to Q-50 as soon as possible. I want to assure the House that I did not knowingly or intend to mislead the House. I take this matter extremely seriously. I am discussing the matter with my departmental officials to ensure this does not happen again. It came to light they made an error with the search terms when conducting the search.

I also want to express my deep regret to the member for Red Deer—Mountain View, who was simply seeking information in order to discharge his duties as a member of Parliament.

Again, I am deeply sorry to all members present and to the House.

Response by Natural Resources Minister to Order Paper QuestionPrivilegeGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

I thank the hon. minister for bringing this to the attention of the House, and doing so on on a timely basis.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Coastal GasLink projectBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

We will now continue with questions and comments.

The hon. member for Shefford.

Opposition Motion—Coastal GasLink projectBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

Bloc

Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC

Mr. Speaker, all day, MPs have been talking about the impact these blockades are having on their respective ridings. We agree on one thing: this crisis needs to end quickly.

My priority is to help Bow Plumbing Group, a business in my riding. I worry that the use of force will lead to an escalation of violence, which will hurt Bow Plumbing Group. Indigenous chiefs like Kanesatake Grand Chief Simon say they are worried this will be another Oka crisis.

Is creating another Oka crisis the answer to getting supplies flowing to businesses and getting the railways up and running again?

Opposition Motion—Coastal GasLink projectBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

Conservative

Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK

Mr. Speaker, I share in her fear. It should never come to force. It should be able to be dealt with in a reasonable fashion. However, we are not creating the issue here, the Liberals are. The reality is that the RCMP have to do what the RCMP have to do, and hopefully not with force. Hopefully they can negotiate their way through it.

I was in Chicoutimi—Le Fjord with the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord talking to people at Rio Tinto. They were already bringing trucks in because they were concerned about getting their aluminum out and getting the bauxite in.

There was already an impact last week in that district on whether they could actually keep that facility running. The reality is that one does not just switch it off, then the next day receive some bauxite and clear some room and turn it back on.

It comes back to the fact that the Liberals could have headed this off a long time ago. If they had taken appropriate actions, dealt with things in an appropriate manner, managed expectations, been realistic and not lied to or misled people, we would not be here.

That is why we are here. The Liberals need to do some soul searching, and they have to understand they are the ones who created this problem. They need to fix it.

Opposition Motion—Coastal GasLink projectBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

NDP

Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC

Mr. Speaker, my colleague commented a lot about the rule of law and order and the costs of not taking action. I think about the over 170 court cases that have sided with indigenous communities in this country, including the Nuu-chah-nulth's right to catch and sell fish.

What are the consequences of the government not honouring those court cases? For example, in Ahousat on Flores Island, they road blocked the pathway to self-determination. They cannot even access the fish swimming right by their villages.

When it comes to the Human Rights Tribunal, children do not have access to the same benefits every other Canadian enjoys. What are the consequences? They are suicide and systemic poverty. The costs are enormous.

Where are the Conservatives when it comes to these injustices? Why are they not standing up with respect to these injustices? Why are they not standing up for the application of law and order when it comes to these files?

Opposition Motion—Coastal GasLink projectBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Conservative

Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the member that we are not the government. It is not for us to stand up for them. We agree that the rule of law is the rule of law. We have to exercise the rule of law and it has to be enforced. If they are not going to do that, there is not much I can do about it, other than speak in this chamber and say, “Do it”.

The reality is that we are not in government. We do not have control. If we were in government, we would have control and we would deal with this in an appropriate fashion. We treat people fairly and with respect. That is what Prime Minister Harper always did. That is why we have never seen interruptions like this. Did they like us all the time? No, but we never lied to them.

I come from the riding of Prince Albert, the riding of John Diefenbaker. John Diefenbaker was the first prime minister to allow first nations people to vote. He was a Conservative leader, so the member should not say that we do not respect indigenous rights, because we do.

Opposition Motion—Coastal GasLink projectBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Conservative

Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to speak in the emergency debate the other night. At that time, I was able to talk about the profound impacts this crisis was having throughout the country. Today, I want to build on my comments from that night. I am really glad this is an opposition day motion, because it is critical to continue that discussion.

I want to unpack some of what is happening with the current emergency crisis taking place.

I will clearly state that the motion is about supporting the Wet'suwet'en community, which, by all accounts, has made an informed and democratic decision about the Coastal GasLink project. As has been stated many times today, every elected chief, the majority of the heredity chiefs and the vast majority of community members are in favour of this project. They have gone through an exhaustive consultation process, lasting many years. Some of the communities have held referendums. These are not my numbers, but the numbers shared by the community to the public and the newspapers.

As Candice George said: Who has the authority to approve this project? The answer, is the Wet'suwet'en people. What we have here is not a classic conflict between indigenous people and resource developers. I agree that for too many years resources were extracted from the traditional territory of indigenous communities with no benefit and very little engagement with the communities that were most impacted. However, from what I hear, from the very start. the consultation process has been thorough.

At the Prince George natural resources conference, I heard one of the elders, who is a hereditary chief, speak. She said that when people first came to the community, she thought “we do not want this project.” However, as she learned about it, as she learned about fracking, as she learned about what this could do for the environment, as she listened, as she talked to my community, her opinion changed. She said that they had been very engaged throughout this process.

Therefore, like with anything, there will not be unanimity. Certainly, there is no unanimity in the House.

We do have a group of hereditary chiefs who are concerned. There is a governance structure in place and it is not up to the House or anyone in it to determine what the governance structure is with respect to how they make decisions.

I want to use an example. They have a structure that has been in place many years. We have the House and the other place. The other place is unelected and we are elected. We have roles to play in the decision-making of what legislation will go forward. Those roles are determined through legislation, our Constitution and convention. In some ways it is similar. We have senators and members of Parliament.

When the government introduced its environmental legislation in the last Parliament, we were opposed. However, it passed through the House and went to the Senate. A group of senators were opposed to the legislation because they thought it would create tremendous damage. However, the legislation passed in the Senate.

The senators who were opposed had to respect the will of the houses that made those determinations. Had they decided to go out and block railways, because they thought the decision of the government was so bad, they immediately would have been subjected to a significant response by the police and others. We have heard about the Wheat Board and farmers taking grain across the border.

I look at the case of the gentleman who decided to take beer from one province in to another province. The law was applied and the person was charged because of that.

A decision was made on which there is no unanimity, but as I say, by all accounts, with the existing processes of this nation it is the best decision it could have made. The federal and provincial agencies have approved this process; the courts issued an injunction and they supported the work that had been done.

Throughout the country, more groups are claiming they are in solidarity with the hereditary chiefs. When there is an extinction rebellion to shut down Canada and a number of other climate groups are behind organizing the protests, I wonder if their motivation is supporting the hereditary chiefs as much as moving their own agendas forward. It seems that a vast majority of the action has been initiated by activists who are willing to engage selectively in the politics of indigenous rights and will actually weaken the people they claim to be supporting.

I will quote Candice George because I truly enjoy her Twitter feed. I recommend that everyone look at it. She is a community member. She said she talked to a number of the elders and asked how they felt about people who are not Wet'suwet'en, who have not asked for their guidance and are out protesting. The answer she said she got was, “Why do they do that? I'm right here. My tongue is not broken.” She is indicating that the elders have told her that these people are certainly not representing their perspective.

There was a big meeting yesterday in Houston and a number of people showed up. I understand there were about 200 people who took three hours out of their day and were clearly in support of the project. They went to the meeting to say they want to see the pipeline built. They said the project is going to create well-paid jobs and economic opportunities for their people. I will read from an article on this meeting, which contains a few quotes:

Among the supporters was Robert Skin, who said he was elected to the council of the Skin Tyee First Nation, which is part of the Wet'suwet'en Nation, to move the community forward.

He said the pipeline will mean a better life for the next generation.

“With the benefit agreement that [the Skin Tyee] did sign, I see us being in a better place even within the next five years,” Skin said.

Speaking to the crowd at the theatre, he said protesters “only get one side of the story” and don't understand the advantages this type of infrastructure project can provide.

Further on the article continues:

The Wet'suwet'en people at the event said they resent the protests because they aren't helping their community, which they say already has fractured governance. They say the protests have amplified the conflict in the community and distracted Wet'suwet'en people from resolving their differences.

Another person who has a job opportunity talked about the “pugnacious and overbearing” impact of these protesters and that they are professional protesters.

The article refers to Marion Tiljoe Shepherd and is particularly poignant. It states:

Shepherd said she's increasingly angered by the protesters across the country. She said they don't speak for, nor represent her community.

“It's none of their business,” she said in an interview following the event. “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.”

In summary, we have a government that has been paralyzed by inaction. It did nothing. When people engage in civil disobedience, they do so knowingly. Even when the Green leader protested at Kinder Morgan. She knew she was going to be arrested. She knew she would be charged. Those were the expectations she had.

I am really concerned with the response of the government. The Prime Minister was missing in action. He was in Africa to get a UN seat. He finally showed up and there are no consequences. There will be increasing problems in this country.

As I said the other night, I see this as a dress rehearsal if there are no repercussions for knowingly breaking the law, which there always have been. People know that if they engage in civil disobedience, there will be repercussions.

We have a problem and it is quite literally at the government's feet. It is the government's fault.

Opposition Motion—Coastal GasLink projectBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Hull—Aylmer Québec

Liberal

Greg Fergus LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and to the Minister of Digital Government

Mr. Speaker, you will understand that I completely disagree with my hon. colleague's analysis.

I have an important question. Does the hon. member believe that if we follow the recommendation in the motion moved by the Conservatives, that will lead to lasting peace?

I sincerely ask the hon. member to think about the Oka situation before she answers.

Opposition Motion—Coastal GasLink projectBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Conservative

Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

Mr. Speaker, we have a situation where our country is paralyzed. There are significant impacts throughout the country.

We need to be a country where there is the rule of law. I recognize the RCMP needs to be given latitude to try to decrease tension and to do the job it is expected to do. However, we cannot have a government that says the government should not do anything when there are situations such as this. The government did not deal with the situation when there were early indications. It allowed the situation to fester, and it has not done anything. If there are no consequences, there will be increasing problems in this country.

Opposition Motion—Coastal GasLink projectBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

February 20th, 2020 / 6 p.m.

Bloc

Louise Charbonneau Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC

Mr. Speaker, the repercussions are being felt even in Mauricie. Our economy is significantly affected by this dispute. We are still waiting for a passenger train, the HFR. Our trains primarily carry goods, which is why it is so important to break this impasse.

What is the Conservative Party's position on the use of force?

Will that really advance negotiations to resolve this conflict?

Opposition Motion—Coastal GasLink projectBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Conservative

Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

Mr. Speaker, I share the member's concerns about the blockade of the railway. Today in the riding I represent the rail lines were blocked. It is a problem.

When home heating for our seniors, chlorine for our drinking water, and many services that people need are jeopardized, health and safety is jeopardized. No one in this House wants to see force being used. We need to trust our RCMP, our police services, to do the job they need to do, but there is also a responsibility to enforce injunctions and to move forward—

Opposition Motion—Coastal GasLink projectBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Questions and comments, the hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay.

Opposition Motion—Coastal GasLink projectBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

NDP

Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC

Mr. Speaker, how can the member expect the use of force in getting rid of these blockades to solve the problem?

The Unist’ot’en camp has been in place in Wet’suwet’en territory for 10 years, since the Conservative government was in power here. One year ago, the RCMP went in and removed that camp and forcibly arrested 14 people, I believe. Then it went back again just recently. That has spawned all these blockades across the country.

How is this going to solve the problem?

Opposition Motion—Coastal GasLink projectBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Conservative

Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

Mr. Speaker, no one wants the use of force. Right now in Blue River, British Columbia, there is a camp. The camp is there to protest the Trans Mountain pipeline.

We all know that in this country we have the right to demonstrate and we have the right to be peaceful, but when people start to tamper with rail lines, when they start to jeopardize the health and safety of Canadians, we have a problem and we need to recognize it as such.

Opposition Motion—Coastal GasLink projectBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Conservative

Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC

Mr. Speaker, I just found out in the last hour that there is a new blockade on the rail line, basically on the boundary between my riding and the member's riding. This is the CP Rail main line, which has approximately 30 trains per day. These are container trains, lumber trains, coal trains and petroleum trains. They carry all sorts of goods that keep this economy going, such as the grain trains. Saskatchewan will not be able to get its products to market.

How can this continue to go on? Is it because of the weak response of the government with no action being taken?

Opposition Motion—Coastal GasLink projectBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Conservative

Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

Mr. Speaker, this has been an issue for a number of months, and the Prime Minister has essentially ignored it. He said it was up to the provinces to deal with it. When it was becoming a crisis, he was in Africa advocating for his UN seat and ignoring the crisis at home.

The first action we have seen by the government was when it reached a boiling point. In health care, we look at a preventative approach. I would say there has been no preventative action to actually stop this problem before it even started.

Opposition Motion—Coastal GasLink projectBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Before we resume debate, I will let the parliamentary secretary know there are only about seven minutes remaining in the time for debate on this motion, but I will give him the usual signal to interrupt him when we get to the end of Business of Supply.

Opposition Motion—Coastal GasLink projectBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Scarborough—Rouge Park Ontario

Liberal

Gary Anandasangaree LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my friend from Hull—Aylmer.

I rise to speak to the motion and respectfully acknowledge that I do so while standing on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people.

I would like to begin by assuring the House that our government is working hard to find a peaceful solution so that travellers can take VIA Rail again, workers can return to their jobs, consumers can be assured supplies of essential goods will be in stock and businesses can again count on the logistics systems that keep our economy moving. I also want to acknowledge and welcome the letter from the RCMP in British Columbia that says they intend to withdraw from the outpost.

We are well aware that these protests are having a significant impact on Canadians, and my thoughts are with all those who are affected, including those who are protesting. The right to protest is enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. All people have the right to protest in a peaceful manner.

Prior to being elected as a member of Parliament, I took part in many protests. In fact, my first time coming to Ottawa was to protest, and I have on many occasions in my professional life defended people's right to protest.

When we take away people's right to protest, we deprive them of a space where they can express themselves peacefully.

I therefore stand in solidarity with all indigenous people, both those who are opposing the Coastal GasLink and those who support it. The Wet'suwet'en people have an inherent right to self-determination and have a right to decide who speaks for them. The matter of leadership with the Wet'suwet'en people is for their nation to decide, not for us to dictate.

Reconciliation is a journey and takes a great deal of effort and will by all those who are involved. Reconciliation does not take place overnight. It is an accumulation of years, decades, generations of incidents, actions and attitudes. For 500 years, indigenous peoples in this land have faced discrimination in every aspect of their lives. It is only through meaningful engagement that those who have been ignored and disrespected for far too long can find a path forward.

Canada's long and painful history of colonialism, the legacy of residential schools, the immeasurable loss of language and culture and the displacement of lands and ways of life for 153 years have rendered indigenous people in Canada second-class citizens on their own lands.

For these people, the result is a loss of governance and control over their lives and their way of life.

Our Prime Minister and our government are absolutely determined to move forward with reconciliation, but this journey will have challenges and obstacles. The subject of the debate today is one such example. We will face moments in this path to reconciliation when our collective and historical failures are highlighted. This is one such moment. The challenge for us is to address these moments peacefully without further harm, learn from them and work to move forward toward the self-determination that will enable indigenous peoples to control their destiny.

Each day we make choices that either help to reconcile or help contribute to division. The motion presents us with such a choice today. Now is not the time for action that would divide and inflame. Now is the time, as the Prime Minister has said, for “creating a space for peaceful, honest dialogue with willing partners.” We believe that in addressing this issue we are given an opportunity to close the gap and heal long-standing wounds. We believe it is essential to address the crisis in a constructive and peaceful way.

In this debate we need to acknowledge the importance of dialogue based on respect, co-operation and the recognition of rights. Perhaps most importantly, in this dialogue we must also learn to listen. We need to look beyond simply getting the trains running and see this for what it is: an opportunity to make progress and a journey toward transformative change. As the Minister of Indigenous Services said last night:

One of the steps necessary to achieve peaceful progress in an unreconciled country is to continue that open dialogue at the very highest levels of government based on a nation-to-nation and government-to-government relationship.

This is what has guided the actions of our government over the past few days.

I would like to remind the House of the views brought forward by National Chief Perry Bellegarde, who said:

I think we need to be patient and see what dialogue will bring.

Our people are taking action because they want to see action. And when they see positive action by the key players, when they see a commitment to real dialogue to address this difficult situation, people will respond in a positive way.

I believe that his words underscore the upside potential of this crisis. If we can resolve this situation peacefully and with mutual respect, we help build trust, and that trust can help shape a stronger Canada for tomorrow. I would suggest to the House that resolving this situation in a peaceful and respectful way will help provide a foundation for continued dialogue and mutual respect, and be in Canada's long-term interests for our society and our economy.

In the final analysis, it is in Canada's best interests, in the short term and the long term, to keep the discussions going in search of a peaceful and long-lasting solution, a solution that may put us further down the true road of reconciliation. I urge all hon. member to vote against the motion before us.

Opposition Motion—Coastal GasLink projectBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

It being 6:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?