Debates of Dec. 3rd, 2024

Environment and Sustainable Development

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, as far as my colleague's intervention, I just wonder what NDP members really believe in. With the way they are acting and supporting the Liberal government, I do not know if they believe in climate change. However, they have a chance right now to prove the Liberal government wrong, to distance themselves and to prove that the Liberals are actually fake environmentalists.

Will they support our motion to bring all the unredacted net-zero accelerator program documents to the forefront so that we can see them?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals are fake environmentalists, but the Conservatives hate environmentalists. I would at least go with the people who attempt to understand the environment compared with those members from the Conservative Party who actually want to destroy the environment with impunity and have proven that every time they have been in power.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to return to recommendation 3, “That the Government of Canada promote innovation and support the electrification of marine and aviation transport as a means of reducing emissions.”

It was the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers that made me realize the importance of investing in a national aerospace policy, which would allow companies like Bombardier, Pratt & Whitney, Airbus and all the others thanks to whom we have an ecosystem in Montreal to build aircraft from nose to tail. While that is absolutely fantastic, building planes obviously costs billions of dollars. The necessary money will be there in 15 years. A national aerospace policy would make transportation electrification possible.

I would like to hear my NDP colleague's opinion. Is this one of the solutions that must be put in place for the government to invest where it should in the Quebec economy?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, the answer is yes, absolutely.

I am grateful to my colleague for having asked this question.

[Leila Dance, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, when I speak to people in my riding of Elmwood—Transcona, they tell me they need help. The Conservatives claim to care about affordability, but they just voted against giving Canadians breaks on essentials. Last year, they voted against taking the GST off home heating. We know that they do not believe in climate change, and it seems that they also do not believe in their own slogans.

Can the member for New Westminster—Burnaby talk about how it would have affected Canadians today if these subsidies had not been given?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would point out that the member for Elmwood—Transcona is an incredibly dynamic, well-spoken member of the House who began asking questions immediately after being elected. She represents her constituents very well, and she is absolutely right to point out that we need to be making investments that have a benefit in such places as Elmwood—Transcona.

The Conservatives and the Liberals ignored the riding, but the NDP is fighting for the people of Elmwood—Transcona, and the member has done a magnificent job in just a few weeks.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for Kings—Hants.

Nine years ago, under the Conservative Party, Canada used to be one of the worst performers. Organizations such as Climate Action Tracker now recognize that Canada's plan is credible and transparent. The latest UNEP gap report says that Canada has the first comprehensive road map for how to achieve the 2030 target. This was unthinkable nine years ago. Our government has put forward very ambitious measures.

International groups have noted that, at the end of 2022, Canada followed through on our commitment to end international public finance for fossil fuels; in addition, we have put forward some of the most ambitious regulations, with the goal of reducing oil and gas methane emissions by at least 75% from 2012 levels by 2030. Building on the actions of millions of Canadians, our government continues to take action to reduce emissions and to fight climate change while strengthening our economy with good jobs and clean industrial growth, making a healthy environment for all Canadians.

First, let us talk about progress. According to the Canadian Climate Institute, since 2005, Canada's emissions have dropped by 8%. Canada's emissions are at their lowest point in 25 years, and we are on track to meet our 2026 interim goal and our 2030 goal. At the same time, our economy is growing, inflation and interest rates are all coming down, and we continue to put forward some of the most ambitious climate regulations in the world.

We are capping pollution, not production, for the oil and gas sector, which is a critical step toward fighting climate change while requiring investments in decarbonization. Estimates show that, if we still had the previous Conservative government, Canada's emissions would have been 41% higher by 2030. That is the equivalent, in terms of pollution, of adding another 69 million cars to our roads in Canada. The leader of the Conservative Party of Canada wants to slash legislation protecting our environment. He wants to allow Canada's largest polluters to pollute without limits and drive up the costs of climate change. We cannot let that happen. No sector is deserving of unlimited pollution.

First, let us talk about Canada's 2030 emissions reduction plan. It is a sector-by-sector path for Canada to reach our emissions target of 40% below 2005 levels by 2030 and net-zero emissions by 2050. The plan was introduced in 2022, and it reflects input from over 30,000 Canadians, provinces and territories, indigenous peoples, industry and Canada's independent net-zero advisory body.

Since 2016 our government has been continuing to make historic investments in clean growth and climate action.

Pricing pollution is an integral part of Canada's climate plan; it is a carbon pollution policy that makes life more affordable while growing a clean economy by providing money up front to families. The Conservative Party of Canada does not want to talk about the fact that the carbon price is attracting new investments and creating jobs right across Canada. As a direct result of our climate action, Dow Chemicals is creating over 8,000 jobs and investing $11 billion in Canada to build a manufacturing plant. The president of Dow Chemicals said, “Canada has market-based carbon pricing.... That was an essential piece for us to decide to invest [there]”.

Pollution pricing is estimated to contribute about a third of the emissions reductions achieved so far under Canada's 2030 emissions reduction plan. There is a reason that countries around the globe are implementing pollution pricing systems. That is because it works. I will give us a few examples. The entire EU has created a cap-and-trade system, which is working really well. Their credit prices are now at €70 a tonne, which is about $103 Canadian, and that is considerably higher than the $80 a tonne that we have it set at right now.

Many EU countries, including Finland, Switzerland and France, also have a separate price on pollution. South Africa has carbon pricing. New Zealand has cap and trade, with prices at $50 a tonne. Despite what the Conservatives say, some of the largest economies in the United States, such as California, New York and Washington state, have carbon pricing as well.

Our ERP includes over 140 programs, policies and regulations to help Canada bend the emissions curve. They include phasing out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, adjusting the Canada carbon rebate amounts in line with the price on pollution, and ensuring that the rebate continues to reflect the projected proceeds in each province where the fuel charge applies. A 20% rural top-up is available for households in rural areas and smaller communities across Canada. They also include cleaner fuels to power our vehicles and industries, increasing the supply of zero-emission vehicles and energy so that more Canadians can make the switch to cleaner and cheaper vehicles to operate. We are also adding more clean and reliable electricity to help our economy remain competitive. In addition, we are releasing Canada's methane strategy to cut emissions right across the economy.

While reducing our emissions is important for our environment, it is also very important for our health. I would like to highlight the very good work of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment. I met with them for the first time a couple of years ago, when I was parliamentary secretary for health, and they highlighted a really incredible program called PaRx, as in park prescriptions.

Physicians, in association with the BC Parks Foundation, gave out prescriptions for time outside as a method of improving people's health. They were also doing some advocacy about fossil fuel regulations. However, when we started talking about this incredible intervention to get more people outside, it sparked my interest. I love going outside, and as parliamentary secretary for health, it was really incredible.

Just yesterday, after about a year of work and meetings, I introduced all of these groups. BC Parks Foundation, my local conservation authority, Conservation Halton and Halton Healthcare were there and we announced that Halton Healthcare would be the first hospital consortium in Canada that had PaRx prescriptions available. The healing power of nature is available to constituents across Halton Region now because of the great work of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment and the BC Parks Foundation.

I want to thank all parties involved.

Next, I would like to talk about the investments for the clean renewable pathways program. That includes $50 million for the Bekevar Wind Farm in Saskatchewan, which will generate enough clean electricity to power over 100,000 homes. There are $50 million for the Oneida energy storage project in Ontario, which will help reduce Ontario's emissions by 1.2 million tonnes. There are over $12 million for the Enterprise solar project in Alberta, which is in construction and will create over 900 jobs. There are also $2.5 million for the Lac-Mégantic in Quebec to help support its net-zero microgrid.

Canada has now beaten China, and we are now the first in the world with respect to the most promising EV battery manufacturing economy. Our investments in the clean economy and our environmental plan will add an additional 400,000 jobs to the clean economy, according to the Canadian Climate Institute. Also, $48 billion are added to our economy with 250,000 jobs in the EV supply chain alone, according to the Royal Bank of Canada. In Ontario, Volkswagen is building its largest EV battery facility ever, creating over 30,000 new jobs, an incredible number for that community.

In Alberta, Air Products is investing $1 billion to build a hydrogen facility, creating 200 new jobs. In Newfoundland, Braya Renewable Fuels is converting Come By Chance's oil refinery into a renewable diesel facility, creating 200 full-time jobs and 800 during its construction phase. In addition to that, the Awasis solar project is a 10-megawatt solar power project receiving $18.5 million in funding. It is creating clean power and good jobs near Regina, Saskatchewan.

All parts of the economy have important roles to play in meeting Canada's 2030 climate targets, from transportation to the oil and gas sector to heavy industry, construction and buildings. Everyone must do their part. As I said earlier, no sector across Canada's economy should be entitled to unlimited pollution.

Measures like the proposed pollution cap are crucial in addressing emissions from Canada's highest-polluting sectors. It also encourages sectors to reinvest in clean energy products that will cut pollution and create new jobs in Canada. Canada has shown that we can reduce our emissions while growing our economy and supporting Canadians by creating new and sustainable jobs in emerging sectors, driving innovation and environmental protection, providing economic opportunities for Canadian businesses right across the economic spectrum and increasing investments in clean energy projects.

All of these investments are skating to where the puck is going, not to where the puck has been. That is why we are strong progressives. That is why we believe in taking action and meeting the moment in Canada and across the world. We cannot stop now. We need to continue to push forward for our environment, our future, our kids and grandchildren and future generations of Canadians. Earthlings are counting on us.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am wondering about the $8-billion net-zero accelerator fund, in which over 70% of contracts gave no commitment to reduce emissions. Upon review of the documents, which we have been put under a gag order, 360 pages were ripped out of them. Does the member know who ripped those pages out?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am thrilled to talk about the net-zero accelerator fund, because one of the largest emitters in southwestern Ontario is our critical steel sector. We know that steel is an important product for various things right across the country, from automotive to construction and many other practical applications, but, until now, it has always required thermal coal for its production. Thanks to the net-zero accelerator fund, we are bringing in electric arc technology for the steel refineries in the Hamilton area. When I went to McMaster University, I used to work in the steel industry.

It is great news not just for our collective health and economy but also driving the steel industry forward. That is thanks, as my colleague opposite just mentioned, to the net-zero accelerator fund.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, as we know, my colleague from Milton is often tasked by the Liberal government to defend the indefensible.

He mentioned that there was a lot of investment in Ontario, in particular in Stellantis, Volkswagen and Honda. These factories will be operational in three or four years.

The problem is that Canada does not produce lithium. Right now, there is a mine in my riding that produces lithium, but it is not processed. The Canadian critical minerals strategy should ensure that ore is processed near the mine, but that is not what is happening.

In three or four years, we will have to put lithium in those batteries. Where will we get it from? China? How will we make sure that it complies with a policy that is as close to net zero as possible?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and friend for his question.

We are committed to building the future by shifting our economy toward electricity and greener energies. There have been a lot of investments in Quebec as well. I spoke about the investments in Ontario because that is where I live, but there is a lot of green and sustainable investment in Quebec, particularly in the critical minerals sector.

I know that my colleague believes in the fight against climate change and in the importance of a green future for our country and the generations to come.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the House needs to hear this again, that some 600 people died during the heat dome in British Columbia, some of them in Vancouver East. Some of my constituents lived in a SRO, where the air is absolutely stifling, and they were forced to become unhoused. There are now encampments as a result of that.

Now we have the Liberal government and the Prime Minister who, during a climate crisis, bought a pipeline. Over and over again, the NDP has been calling for the Liberals to end the subsidy for big oil, yet they will not do it. They say they support Canadians with a half measure on the GST. The NDP is saying that they should in fact ensure that the elimination of the GST applies for home heating and for essentials, and make that a permanent program.

Will the Liberals do it and end the subsidies for big oil to pay for it?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her climate advocacy. It is absolutely horrid to imagine all the devastation that has occurred in Canada. We know that Canada is warming at three or four times the average rate of the rest of the world due to climate change, and it is indeed a crisis.

However, I am very proud of the fact that Canada is not only the oil and gas-producing nation to bring forward a cap on emissions, but we have also ended all those fossil fuel subsidies ahead of schedule. It is also important not to paint them all with the same brush, because we still have some northern indigenous communities that require those subsidies for their power systems.

It is disappointing to see the NDP continually point to carbon pricing as something that should not be part of a responsible climate plan. It is part of our climate plan, and it is disappointing that the New Democrats have turned their backs on that.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, today, we are here to talk about the 10th report of the environment committee, because the Conservatives have once again moved a concurrence motion in the House.

It is important for us to explain to Canadians, who may be watching the proceedings of the House of Commons and asking themselves why we are still sitting in this situation two months later. It bears repeating a little of why we are here.

First, the question is around privilege and documents that the Conservatives constantly say the government is not providing. What they fail to recognize is that the government has provided the documents to Parliament. The question is whether unredacted documents that are derived from a parliamentary order, from a majority of the House of Commons, should be passed off to the RCMP.

The good news is that we have information from the RCMP. It has come out and said, “No thanks, Parliament.” It is fine with using the existing ways to gather evidence for any type of criminal prosecution. By the way, the government recognizes that the Auditor General's report on SDTC is a serious matter. A third-party investigation has been launched. The government has provided the documents.

The Conservatives have moved a motion to let this entire question around whether Parliament should allow documents to be sent to the RCMP, unredacted, which could infringe on charter rights of any defendants, be moved to PROC. However, for two straight months now, the Conservatives have continually stood in this place to move amendments to their own motion, when every party in the House agrees that this matter should go to PROC.

The record has to be set and understood, because we are wasting parliamentary time in this place. I do think it is important for my colleagues in the other opposition parties to ask themselves at what point would they support a closure motion on this question, so it can go to PROC. They bear some responsibility in the question about what they want to get for their constituents in this place, and what we can do to work together.

The Bloc Québécois and the NDP should ask themselves, at what point, when the government has provided the documents to Parliament—

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

We have been enduring the debates on the Conservatives' motion for a month and a half now. Right now, we have an opportunity to talk about something else for five minutes, but my colleague is still talking about the Conservatives' motion. Can we talk about the topic at hand?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There is a bit of latitude during debate, but the members' interventions must relate to the topic at hand. I am certain that the hon. member will make a connection with the motion currently before the House.

The hon. member for Kings—Hants.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, it has only been three minutes, but what I would say is that it is incumbent on all members of Parliament to ask themselves that question. Getting back to this motion, the Conservatives continue to use this as a delay tactic, not allowing other important questions to come before Parliament. When they go home tonight, I would encourage opposition members in the Bloc Québécois and the NDP to ask themselves what they want to get accomplished with the time we have remaining in this Parliament.

On the motion for concurrence on the 10th report, I have read the 10th report. I do not sit on the environment committee, but this did give me a good opportunity to go through the report and look at the recommendations. When the member for Portage—Lisgar stood up this morning to move the motion, it was ironic that he did not talk about the Conservatives' environmental plan or what they would do at all. In fact, an amendment in relation to the net zero accelerator fund was moved and that was turned down by the Speaker. It was ruled out of order. Again, the Conservatives want to use this place to get up on talking points instead of getting work done, instead of actually being able to focus.

If we want to talk about the environment and investments in critical minerals and Canada's clean tech advantage, I will use my remaining six minutes to talk about that. However, I want to highlight the fact that it is remarkable to me that the Conservatives want to get up and talk about an environmental report tabled by the environment committee. I have sat in this place for five years and I have not seen a genuine effort by the Conservative Party whatsoever to tackle the question of environment, to tackle the question of how Canada leverages its strategic assets to make those investments.

We have heard a slogan “technology, not taxes”. That is a great slogan with no substance behind how we get there. How are we going to leverage those opportunities we have in Canada? How are we going to fund them? That is the part about which the Conservatives do not finish their sentences. When they talk about these things, they are not straight and clear with Canadians about what the cost would be to reduce emissions and drive up Canadian competitiveness. They do not have a substantive plan.

I will give Erin O'Toole credit. In 2021, he started to go down this route. Of course, the backbench of his caucus wanted to pull him down for even mentioning the word carbon pricing. The Conservatives have not really given a genuine answer to this. I know right now that the question is around the pocketbook and affordability. It is around defence and international security. However, the environmental question plays into all of those things, and the Conservatives really do not have a serious answer on this.

Let us take an examination of the record of the Conservative Party when we do have legislation that directly relates to economic growth or affordability. I represent Kings—Hants in the beautiful province of Nova Scotia. A lot of my constituents still use home heating oil in their homes. It is the most expensive way in the country to heat homes. It averages between double to four times the amount of those who have been able to transition off of home heating oil.

This government worked with the Province of Nova Scotia, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Province of Prince Edward Island, where the majority of households use home heating oil, to establish a program to help people make the transition off home heating oil, or certainly reduce their reliance on it. It saves thousands of dollars a month in home heating costs.

The member for Carleton said that the program did not exist. He said that it would not do any good. I have evidence in my riding, where energy bills have been reduced because of the efforts taken by this government. The Conservative Party has voted against it at every single turn. The Conservatives have not been there to help support these initiatives.

Let us talk about Bill C-49, which amended the Atlantic accords. This was simply legislation. It was not even necessarily an investment that the government had to make, or an expenditure, but just regulations to allow the possibility for offshore wind to help drive a decarbonization in Nova Scotia, in Atlantic Canada, and create meaningful jobs in my home province. The Conservatives stood against it at every single turn.

What does the Conservative Party actually stand for? The Conservatives want to suggest that this government has done nothing on the environment. I would remind them that this is the only government in Canadian history, which is far from perfect, by the way, and I sit on the backbenches and do not suggest it is perfect, that has reduced emissions and grown the economy. No government in the history of our country has ever done that. I sit and listen in the House to the extremes from members like the member for Portage—Lisgar, who suggests the government has done nothing. What is he talking about? Although I would agree in some facets about the way the New Democrats present themselves in the House as being more credible, sometimes I hear little to nothing from them.

Have the New Democrats not seen the measures the government has taken? Should we do more? Absolutely. Is it our job as members of Parliament, as parliamentarians, to push the government and the executive, the Privy Council? Yes we should, but let us bring some air of reality to what we are actually dealing with here in this place, and to the complexities and the challenges.

I know that some of my colleagues, including on my side of the House, in my party, when we talk about Trans Mountain, and the NDP, suggest it is in the national interest. Would we rather move oil, gas and bitumen by railroad? The market still is calling for these things around the world. My message to the NDP members when they say we should not have invested in a national interest and a pipeline to move the bitumen that would otherwise be moving on rail cars, do they think that is not a safer way to do it? The government intends to sell the pipeline to indigenous stakeholders to be able to support this. These are some of the complexities and the nuances we do not hear in this place and that we do not actually get in to legitimate debate.

The government does have to continue to focus on the question of Canada's strategic advantage in critical minerals. This matters not only from an emission reduction perspective; I would say that, even more importantly in this context, it also matters for our economy and for defence and strategic interests with the United States. We spent a lot of time in the House talking about the importance of the Canada-U.S. relationship. The government needs to continue to highlight it.

All parliamentarians in this place should be focused on the question of how we can push the ability to reduce regulatory burdens that are not necessarily needed to advance the mining of critical minerals, but do so in a sustainable way. There is an ability to align processes, and I support some of the work the government has done in that place. We need to do more.

I think about things like nuclear energy, the agriculture sector and forestry. There is so much we can do in efforts that drive innovation in those traditional sectors, but also reduce emissions at the same time. We have to continue to focus on the question as one of innovation and of economic growth. Of course, at the end of the day, if it reduces emissions and drives environmental benefit, that is the triple bottom-line win we should be looking for.

I look forward to taking questions from my hon. colleagues in this place.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, some of what the member said was deeply concerning. When I questioned the environment minister about the Trans Mountain expansion project and asked him whether he, as someone who has spoken against pipeline expansions in the past, stood by his government's decision or thought it was a mistake, he could not answer.

However, the member seems to be championing the Trans Mountain expansion, something that cost $35 billion, taxpayer money poured into the pipeline that is actually tripling the capacity to export diluted bitumen to our coast. It is not just about the bitumen that would otherwise be shipped there; it is also about increasing capacity. It is about expanding the tar sands, the oil sands.

Does the member stand by his government's decision to waste taxpayer money on a pipeline that is an economic and environmental disaster?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I was concerned when the member for Victoria, who certainly purports herself in this place to be a strong environmental champion, had very little to say when the NDP backed away from the importance of carbon pricing as a credible plan to be able to move—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There is a point of order from the member for Victoria.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, as stated in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, chapter 3, when members repeat inaccurate information again and again, the Speaker can rule that out of order. I have responded many a time to the issue, and the member knows full well that we support industrial carbon pricing, that carbon pricing is an important part of our—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

That is more of a point of debate. The hon. member can rise on it afterwards.

The hon. member for Kings—Hants has the floor.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I guess what I would say is similar to the member's question. Sometimes members of Parliament, even within the same party, have different views. I am glad to know she supports a consumer carbon price and will continue to push the leader of the NDP to change and reverse his policies as the environmental critic.

With respect to the point around Trans Mountain, the member will remember a podcast we did with Althia Raj five years ago in my office, where I said that at the end of the day, the government has a responsibility to look at the national interest. We are providing a safer way to move the bitumen that is already going to move, by the way.

The question the government had is whether we should move bitumen by railroad or whether we should build a pipeline, which is a safer way to do it; should be able to sell the pipeline back to indigenous partners; and should be able to drive economic interests that matter in this country. I believe that the government and the Liberal party have a level of nuance on this. I would encourage the member opposite to certainly ask questions in her own house about where the NDP stands on its own plans around the environment.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, the member talked about a few particular energy projects for which I want to take a moment here.

The finance minister came to committee and said she thought the government could get back more money than it has spent on TMX, meaning that she thinks it can receive close to $37 billion on its pipeline. The PBO said that it would probably be lucky to get $27 billion; he does not think the government is going to be able to make up all of the money it has wasted on the pipeline. Why did the Liberals have to spend $34 billion on a pipeline? It was because of the regulatory uncertainty that chased away the private sector proponent that would have built it itself.

The Impact Assessment Act was unconstitutional then and still is now. That is important for the Atlantic accord, which impacts the member's region of the country.

When we look at what the government is doing, we see that it continues to mess things up all the time. How on earth is it ever going to get its money back on TMX?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I will respond very quickly, because my hon. colleague covered a lot.

First of all, the Atlantic accord is a joint jurisdiction, so while the Conservatives like to bring up the Impact Assessment Act, it does not apply in the context of the Atlantic accord. Therefore I will correct the record or certainly help educate the member on that particular point.

As it relates to the Conservatives, the irony of course, and the level of nuance, is that the government has to be mindful of the global transition that is happening on energy. We chose to make an investment. I will remind the hon. member that Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party did nothing to actually expand access to our natural resource market with things like pipelines. That never happened.

Therefore we can have an honest and reasonable conversation about whether or not the government should have gotten involved or not. I believe that it made the right choice, that the costs associated with it will be recovered and that the investment it made is in the national interest. The member represents western Canada. One would think he would get up and support those types of decisions that have been made by the government.