Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago I asked the government, while it was waving around its MOU, whether it could actually offer Albertans a guarantee on a pipeline and when it would be built, not just another headline or announcement. I was told that this memorandum would set out a comprehensive economic path forward for Alberta. The only problem is that there is no guarantee with this plan. It is more of just a pinky promise. Anyone can make a plan to do anything. That is not the problem. The problem is following through on that plan.
The Prime Minister has the ability to get several pipelines under way today. In fact, that was something that I was worried about after we passed Bill C-5 through this House. He has the ability to provide investors with certainty, so that communities and families can rely on the energy sector in northern Alberta. If the Prime Minister was serious about turning Canada into an energy superpower, as he said he would, we would have had shovels in the ground back in April. He had the ability back then, but even then he would not. This is because the government is not serious about Canadian oil and gas.
Really, the Prime Minister does not actually need to do anything; he just needs to repeal Bill C-48 and Bill C-69, and Canadians would build Canada. Pipelines would be built here in Canada. These are the “no more pipelines” bills. What is interesting is that Bill C-48 is a bill that is a shipping ban. It is not a tanker ban; it is a shipping ban. It is illegal to take oil off the shore of Canada and put it on a boat. That is what is illegal with Bill C-48. It is not at all about tankers travelling through the inside passage or travelling along the Canadian west coast. It is about preventing Canadian oil and gas from getting on a tanker. That is why we call it a shipping ban.
We recently had a vote on this agreement. The Prime Minister cannot get his anti-energy, “keep it in the ground” caucus to agree to getting pipelines built, but Conservatives actually want to succeed. We want to give Canadian families and investors the chance to have certainty from our government, so just yesterday we put forward a motion calling on the government to vote on its plan and memorandum. We thought that this would be an effective way to make sure that the Prime Minister lived up to his words, so we used the text right out of this comprehensive plan and included amendments proposed by the government itself.
If the government was serious about energy and pipelines, or at least about its own promises, one would think that it would have no problem voting for its own words right here in this place, but that is not what happened. Even members from Alberta who sit in the Liberal caucus were not able to vote for this. I do not know why, but the Prime Minister convinced his entire caucus and would not let even members from Alberta vote for a pipeline right here in Canada.
When the government votes against its own energy agreement, it sends a clear message to Canadians that Canadian energy jobs are secondary to partisan considerations, and the Prime Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot claim to support Alberta's economy and energy workers and at the same time block the infrastructure needed to make our economy thrive.
The hon. members for Calgary Confederation and Edmonton Centre will certainly have to explain to their constituents why they voted against Albertan jobs, the Alberta economy, Albertan growth and Albertan investment, and why they voted against Albertans.
The point of this is certainty, because when pipelines are delayed or uncertain, investment goes elsewhere. We have seen this over and over again, such as with the Carmon Creek project, which was cancelled in northern Alberta. Weeks later, the same company, Shell, announced a project in Kazakhstan. We have seen this time and time again. We saw the northern gateway pipeline cancelled, and they went out and built a pipeline in the United States.
Why does this government continually vote against Alberta?