Debates of Dec. 9th, 2025

Opposition Motion—Pipeline Construction

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Leduc—Wetaskiwin.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Leduc—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, while members of the House may sometimes get confused when they see the two of us standing up, let us be assured we could not be further apart in terms of our views on this issue. This is probably more of a comment than a question, because I do not know where a question would even go. The comment would be that the wish list for my constituents, and probably his, would include the strongest health care in the world, the strongest education systems in the world and support for people who are vulnerable.

I would argue that the oil and gas sector in Canada has created untold billions of dollars in financing toward those things. The Liberal approach over the last decade of shutting down the oil and gas sector largely has not benefited the environment in any way. I do not think there has been any benefit to the environment, but I do think it has benefited the economies of Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and other oil-producing countries at the expense of our own systems and our own ability to fund important health care, social service and education services in Canada.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague and I may indeed look a bit alike, but we certainly do not think alike.

Oil and gas in Canada is going from strength to strength. Production is going up, and so are emissions. No one on the other side of the House has shut down the oil and gas industry. On the contrary, the government is rolling out the red carpet for the industry and putting billions of dollars on the table. These billions of dollars are being taken out of the pockets of Quebeckers and from other areas.

We should transition and make plans to move away from oil and gas. As we know, oil and gas production will not be discontinued overnight, but we need to plan for a transition. My colleague mentioned health, but according to the World Health Organization, the biggest threat to health is climate change.

Choosing to bury our heads in the sand and prioritizing oil and gas would definitely be bad for our health.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is good to get the member opposite's perspective. He has been an environmental leader for many years. There are a couple of important things that he mentioned. The first was that becoming an energy superpower includes all forms of energy and that we need to invest in clean energy and invest in jobs in clean energy, because that is where the jobs of the future are.

Thinking about the global transition toward electric vehicles and transportation, electric heating and cooling, electric industrial processes and electric computing and data centres, would he agree it is pragmatic to provide paths forward for natural resources where the market exists and also to invest heavily in electric production and transmission throughout Canada?

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, obviously we support electrification because we know we need to accelerate the transition to renewable energy. However, we do not believe we have to give the nuclear industry billions of dollars to generate more electricity for data centres.

Perhaps my colleague misunderstood something. Our party is fully aligned with the goal of becoming a clean energy and renewable electricity superpower. However, we believe that increasing production of some of the world's dirtiest oil and gas is a step in the wrong direction and goes against what the science says. It also goes against what the public wants for Canada. Opinion polls show that the vast majority of Canadians want the government to do more to fight climate change. Unfortunately, your agreement with Alberta is a betrayal of the climate cause and of Canada's targets, and it is the exact opposite of what needs to be done.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I just want to remind the hon. member that he must address his comments to the Chair.

The hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford has the floor.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the discourse from the member from the Bloc Québécois, but unfortunately I do not think he really understands British Columbia and what British Columbians want. British Columbians are the most environmentally conscious people in the entire country. That is a statistical fact. We love our rainforests. We love our natural environment. However, the majority of British Columbians also understand that we can have natural resource development and protect our environment.

We also believe strongly in protecting the sovereignty of Canada, and a pipeline to the coast of British Columbia will allow the country of Canada to export more oil and gas, which will lead to better social services in Canada and will also diversify our economy at a time when we are suffering. I hope the member from the Bloc Québécois can understand that British Columbia is very different from Quebec and that his comments did not properly reflect the way British Columbians truly feel.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I invite my colleague to read what the Assembly of First Nations of Canada very clearly said. It wants the agreement to be withdrawn. Its members unanimously opposed lifting the oil tanker ban. The Premier of British Columbia has also been very clear. He was not consulted, and he does not support a pipeline that would go through first nations territory.

I think this is very clear. All the newspapers reported on this. My colleague may say what he likes, but I look at the facts, and the fact is that the Premier of British Columbia is clearly not happy with this agreement.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to share my time with the member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

How did we get here, to a point where Canada, a nation blessed with some of the world's most ethical oil and hardest-working people, cannot even get a pipeline within our own borders built without years of political trench warfare? For years the Liberal government has fuelled a culture war against Alberta and against Canada's energy workers. It has demonized the very people who power and heat our homes. It has demonized the Canadians who make it possible to have the smart phones, clothing and medical equipment every single member of the chamber uses daily.

There are pipelines beneath our feet right now in this city and this country. Petroleum is everywhere in this room, in the microphone I am speaking into and in the chairs we sit on, yet the Liberals pretend oil is some foreign enemy they play games with.

Worse still, they play games with indigenous communities and exploit first nations as a political tool. They talk endlessly about reconciliation, but what indigenous communities actually get from the Liberals is just more bureaucracy through the Indian Act, more mismanagement through entities like the negligent Indian Oil and Gas Canada office, and more trust monies locked away and controlled by Ottawa. It is all talk with zero structural change.

Standing up for first nations is not cynicism like the energy minister claims the motion represents, which is, by the way, their party's own very words. Asking the government to build trust by meeting its basic responsibilities as a government is not cynicism. The Liberals claim to honour free, prior and informed consent, but let us be honest: This is just more games and exploitation of indigenous communities by them. Liberals are using consultation as a political shield rather than building infrastructure that benefits all Canadians. This is just more games and exploitation.

When 111 out of 129 first nations actively participate in Trans Mountain, where are the Liberals to defend the 18 that do not participate? They do not care about the few who opposed it, because it is just politics of convenience for them. The Liberals have set up Alberta, first nations and British Columbia to fail from the start. The parliamentary secretary said yesterday that the next steps for this are the creation of a trilateral table with Alberta, B.C. and the federal government. Again there is no mention of first nations at that table, the same people he says need free, prior and informed consent.

The Liberals are not serious about respect. They are not serious about UNDRIP. They are not serious about any of that. They are not honest. They are just name-dropping first nations in their public statements, with no intention of bringing them to the decision-making table. Who is really dividing Canadians? The government has two faces, with a bipolar Bill C-5 pipeline policy one day and something completely different the next. It picks winners and losers based on politics, not prosperity.

The government sets up consultation as a political tool. Consultation as a constitutional duty does not need to be political games if backed by solid relationships built beforehand. Trust, reputation, responsibility, respect, honesty, humility and wisdom are how we build pipelines that last; we do not build them with endless promises that are never fulfilled even with the best of the government's brand of consultation.

Conservatives believe that Canada can move at the speed of ambition again. We saw it with natural gas infrastructure. In western Canada, 68 out of 72 first nations and Métis communities across three provinces have signed BCRs and community resolutions to buy critical national gas and petroleum infrastructure. This was done with great partnerships and relationships between the nations and the private sector, because when the right team is in place, Canadians get results. We should expect that same speed when it comes to approval, regulation and construction of pipelines.

Natural resources have been a cornerstone of my family for generations. My own great-grandfather, Chief Billy Morin the first, was there for Leduc No. 1 in the 1940s. He spoke about how oil and gas would fund education, housing, infrastructure and the building up of our community. He spoke about how true economic partnership reduces dependency. Our treaties commit to sharing resources and co-developing as a people thriving with one another, not being excluded from Canada's resource economy. Indigenous peoples want to uplift our communities through resource rights with integrity, respect for the land and water with a fair share of the benefits.

This is what seven-generation thinking means, not whatever the Minister of Finance uses for virtual signalling when he is speaking about indigenous communities. Traditional knowledge matters. Land and water stewardship matter. First nations are already demonstrating this every single day. They are not barriers; they are builders. This is reconciliation, not just more speeches.

However, the Liberal government is actively making our country weaker. While it blocks Canadian oil from reaching tidewater, the United States sails foreign-flag tankers just 12 nautical miles off our west coast. The U.S. gets the market, the jobs and the influence; Canada gets nothing but lectures.

We should be proud of our environmental excellence. Modern technology such as in-situ oil sands and SAGD extraction continues to reduce costs and emissions. We have world-leading spill prevention because of meaningful and real consultations, investments in technology and innovation, and trust built by our Canadian scientists, technicians and communities. Let us believe in them to get the job done and to do this right.

For Trans Mountain there were zero spills from marine shipping since operations began. Yes, TMX went from $4 billion to $30 billion-plus under the Liberal government, but what lessons were learned? Clearly none, because the government continues to pile on red tape, block procurement and stand in the way of major project success. The Major Projects Office is a joke about an endless and ineffective set of bureaucracies; it is a bottleneck disguised as a support system.

Canadians cannot afford the Prime Minister's distraction that delays a new oil pipeline to the Pacific coast.

Conservatives believe that unblocking and shipping a million barrels of oil to Asia a day at world prices will generate a stronger economy and take-home pay for our people, but Carney's, the Prime Minister's, Liberals, continue to stand in the way of all this, promising one thing to Alberta and another thing to “keep it in the ground”—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Members have to make reference to the Prime Minister by his title as opposed to by his name.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Yes, the hon. member knows that, and I believe he corrected himself. However, it is the rule.

The hon. member for Edmonton Northwest.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Madam Speaker, does the Prime Minister even have control of his caucus anymore?

Conservatives will keep fighting to boost Canadian paycheques and make energy, food and homes affordable and our economy self-reliant, secure and sovereign. Where is the respect for people who want opportunity, for those who sign equity agreements on pipelines, and for the first nations that drilled, engineered, built and protected the resources for generations? Where is the reconciliation in excluding them from the table?

Conservatives have a path forward: Repeal the anti-resource legislation that hold Canadians back, end the political games that pit region against region and Canadian against Canadian, and approve nation-building pipelines, including one from Alberta to British Columbia and infrastructure from B.C. back to Alberta, with the full participation and equity ownership of indigenous partners.

Liberals will offer excuses. They will accuse. They will fearmonger. They will continue to divide and delay, and to diminish Canada, but Conservatives will deliver. We will ensure that our workers can succeed at home, that indigenous communities can benefit from their own lands and that Canadian energy powers the world ethically, securely and proudly.

The world needs more Canada, not less; more prosperity, not poverty; and more unity, not division. It is time to build, and it is time to grow. It is time to get pipelines in the ground again.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Madam Speaker, I have tremendous respect for the member, not only because he was previously a chief of his nation but also because of his lived experience in the first nations in his community.

The member opposite was around the first nations chiefs last week as they gathered at the AFN, and I was there with him. I heard first nations chiefs from all across this country, especially British Columbia, say that nothing should happen without their free, prior and informed consent, but when I hear the member's party opposite, its members seem to think they can ram the legislation through for a pipeline without the consent of first nations.

I ask the member, did he hear something different? Does the member opposite agree with his party's framing that the development of major projects should be rammed through without UNDRIP's free, prior and informed consent laws and the rights entrenched in section 35?

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Madam Speaker, certainly we did hear from the chiefs, and they do have concerns, but they are concerns with the government and its failed consultation processes, which I think the Liberal government in the last 10 years has shown.

The other thing is that of course we do agree with the wording; it is right in our motion about consent with indigenous nations. We are not backing away from consultation, which is right in our motion, but when Liberals talk about free, prior and informed consent, I think they are just playing games when it comes to UNDRIP and those things.

Where were the Liberals to defend consent on TMX for the ones who did not agree? Apparently it is just for some, not for all, so when they say “consent”, I think it is the Liberals' playing games, at the end of the day.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, a number of first nations have indicated that they want the tanker moratorium to remain intact. Even if they are consulted, they can ultimately decide to maintain the tanker moratorium. Would my colleague support the government forcing them to set aside the moratorium?

How do we resolve this situation?

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Madam Speaker, I hear the concerns. I hear the concerns of first nations that have environmental concerns. That is totally fair. Again, we are for consultation, as per the wording of the motion, 100%.

However, we also believe in Canadians who do environmental protection, the scientists and the technologists who have been proven time and time again. TMX has had no spill since operation. Now we have to take more risks, apparently, for the existential crisis we are in, but the Liberals keep playing games. They have said they are willing to bend on the tanker ban. We completely support that, but let us not play games anymore; let us actually do it and get the country moving at the end of the day.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have sat in the House now for less than a year, and all I have listened to is Liberals lecturing us on aboriginal issues. They are trying to teach us about what reconciliation is and what aboriginal rights and title are, yet our ancestors helped create section 35 and the case law. Central to that was the environment.

Do we need a lecture from the Liberals on what aboriginal rights and title are all about?

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Madam Speaker, we do not. There is Canadian law, and there are treaties that have been signed, but I think, again, that Liberals typically play games with these to pit one region or people against another. Canadians and first nations people, indigenous people, are tired of this. When I was a kid, we used to do drumming in our classroom. We used to do singing in our classroom. We were taught our language, but we were also speaking and singing the Canadian national anthem at the end of the day. When I was a kid, things were different.

Now it is first nations against Canadians. It is different Canadians against other Canadians, and this is the same thing Liberals do to keep power and control. I think first nations and Canadians want a treaty partnership, which was the original intent of 1867; they do not want a pitting of Canadians against Canadians anymore.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Madam Speaker, we in the Conservative caucus are united. We believe that Canada needs a pipeline to the Pacific and that we need to override the discriminatory anti-Canada ban on shipping Canadian energy overseas. We need this pipeline because it would make for stronger take-home pay, it would make for affordable living, and it would make for a sovereign, self-reliant economy.

Let us talk for a moment about the incredible benefits that such a pipeline would bring. It would allow us to move $30 billion a year of Canadian energy overseas to the 2.5 billion Asian customers who would then pay world prices for it. Thirty billion dollars would be the single biggest increase in overseas exports that any decision by this country could make. To put this into perspective, recently I pointed out that the Prime Minister, after running on the promise that we were in an existential crisis and needed to do the unimaginable at speeds not seen in generations, had not succeeded in removing a single foreign tariff on Canadian exports despite countless months of world travel. He snapped back that there has been a trade deal with Indonesia.

Well, forget the fact that it was the previous prime minister who negotiated that; something the current one has a bad habit of doing is taking credit for things he did not do. By the government's own projections, if that trade deal were to be as good as the Liberals promised, it would add $400 million to our exports. The pipeline to the Pacific would add 75 times more to Canada's exports overseas than would the only agreement the Prime Minister likes to brag about. There is literally not a single trade deal the government could sign and not a single government project it could fund that would come anywhere close to opening up the $30 billion of overseas, non-U.S. exports that this single project would enable.

It would mean thousands of extra jobs for Canadians in western Canada but also, potentially, in central Canada, which might be the region supplying the steel for this patriotic pipeline. It would mean communities on the route would have new life, as workers would be filling restaurants with their paycheques. Local vendors would be able to sell more clothing, more housing supplies and other goods to enable and rejuvenate communities all across the northern part of Alberta and British Columbia. Originating as it would in Hardisty, Alberta, in my wonderful riding, the best people in the world would therefore benefit from this incredible project.

I add that not only would it give paycheques. It would bring tax revenues that would allow us to fund more schools, hospitals and better policing and to increase social services not through higher taxes, as the Liberals so often favour, but rather through a booming economy.

Furthermore, when we export more Canadian goods abroad, we force other countries to buy Canadian dollars. That raises the dollar and therefore the purchasing power of our people. The cost of goods that are internationally priced becomes more affordable. There would be more affordable food, fuel and inputs to build housing. A stronger dollar means a more affordable Canada, and that is our ultimate purpose. The biggest problem in Canada today is that people cannot afford to live, after Liberals doubled housing costs, doubled costs at the grocery store, doubled lineups at food banks and doubled our national debt. One way to make life more affordable is to have a strong Canadian dollar that buys more food, fuel and housing.

All of these incredible benefits would be a no-brainer, and we should not even have to debate it. In fact, we would not have to debate it if the previous Conservative government's decision to approve the northern gateway pipeline to the Pacific had been allowed to go ahead. However, in a November 2016 cabinet decision, the Liberal government killed the northern gateway pipeline. The current Prime Minister, who was not in the cabinet at the time, went on to testify at the industry committee that he agreed with killing the northern gateway pipeline.

The current government continues to have a tanker ban in place that blocks shipping Canadian oil off the northwest coast of B.C. while allowing American tankers to move oil between Alaska and the U.S. west coast. Apparently, it is safe when the Americans transport oil through those same waters but not when Canadians do it. Clearly, that is an act by the government of economic self-harm and of discriminating against Canadians.

The Prime Minister suddenly claimed that he had reversed himself. He signed an MOU. To believe he is actually committed to the MOU, we have to believe he now says he was wrong about everything he wrote and everything the Liberal government did in the preceding 10 years. We have to believe he was wrong about the emissions cap, wrong about the electricity regulations, wrong about shipping oil through a pipeline from Alberta to the Pacific and wrong about the tanker ban. He was wrong about all of those things, but we would have to believe he has accepted that wrong.

Let us give him the benefit of the doubt. Let us give him a chance to come in the House of Commons and vote in favour of what he promised. Conservatives brought forward a good-faith motion just to make sure Liberals meant what they said, to get them all in the House of Commons to vote on whether they want a pipeline to the Pacific and whether they are prepared to open up our waters to shipping energy overseas.

Now, the Liberals went dead quiet. I expected them to enthusiastically applaud this gesture of goodwill. They went dead quiet over the weekend, telling reporters on background they had no idea how they were going to vote on their own MOU proposal for a pipeline and an adjustment to the oil tanker moratorium. I even used wording right out of the Prime Minister's MOU to make it easy for them, but it still was not easy enough.

As we know with Liberals, they often start by making promises and then they go to making excuses. They have been generating a whole lot of excuses about why they have to vote against the wording in their own MOU. Let us go through some of the excuses. They said it did not mention they want to accompany the pipeline with a carbon capture project. They claimed it did not go far enough in spelling out indigenous engagement and ownership. They claimed it did not clearly lay out the plan to engage with British Columbia.

Let us forget for a second the obvious fact that if the Liberals are telling the truth when they say they support the whole MOU, then they should be prepared to vote for any part of the MOU. After all, it is their MOU. That obvious contradiction aside, we know the Liberals have made these excuses. I am going to help brush away those excuses for them. We are going to amend our own motion in order to include the things that the Liberals claim we left out.

We are going to amend the motion so that it will support green-lighting carbon capture and storage, green-lighting indigenous ownership in the project and engaging with British Columbia, in the spirit of good faith. We are removing all the Liberal excuses because we know what the Prime Minister's plan is. He wants to pretend that he supports a pipeline, like the majority of Canadians, just long enough to get through the next election, while he quietly whispers to his “keep it in the ground” caucus, “It will never happen. Do not worry. Just hang tight with me, and be quiet. We will kill it after the election.” To make sure he cannot play that duplicitous game, we are going to give him this amendment.

I move:

That the motion be amended by inserting after the word “including” the word “(i)” and by adding after the words “Indigenous peoples” the following: “(ii) Green lighting the world's largest carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) project for the purpose of making Alberta oil among the lowest carbon intensity produced barrels of oil in the world.” (iii) providing meaningful opportunity for Indigenous rightsholders to participate in consultation processes and economic opportunities through Indigenous ownership, partnerships and benefits,

(iv) engaging with British Columbia immediately in a trilateral discussion on the pipeline project, and during the potential development and construction of the bitumen pipeline referred to in the MOU, and to further the economic interests of B.C. related to their own projects of interest that involve the province of Alberta, including interties, and Canada working with B.C. on other projects of national interest in their jurisdiction”.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I would have liked to hear the amendment put forward by the leader of the official opposition, but I do not know what happened. There were some strange noises. I do not know if the leader of the official opposition had a digestive issue, but it was so disruptive that the interpretation stopped.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member will hear the amendment again. There was indeed an alarm ringing during the presentation.

Since the party leader is moving the amendment, I take it for granted that there is consent to accept the amendment.

The amendment is in order.

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy.

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the progress made in the amendment, but I am very curious as to how it did not mention industrial carbon pricing and the increase of the industrial carbon price as part of this amendment, one of the most important parts of the MOU. Would the member be willing to consider further amending his motion to do the entire MOU rather than, again, cherry-picking the things that his caucus seems to be willing to support?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think we just heard the Liberal member for Calgary Confederation say that he opposes a pipeline to the Pacific unless it includes a massive, crippling carbon tax on his own province. I would encourage him to go around his province, talk to the energy workers in his riding and say the reason he voted against a pipeline is that he does not think Albertans are paying high enough taxes. He wants a higher tax on the Alberta oil sector, a higher tax on Alberta gas and a higher tax on industries that build homes or farmers who produce food.

Conservatives wants a pipeline without a tax. That Liberal member for Calgary Confederation wants a tax without a pipeline.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, the leader of the official opposition repeatedly called it a pipe dream during question period. The federal government announced a fantasy pipeline. This rarely happens, but I agree with what the leader of the official opposition is saying.

This pipeline is indeed a pipe dream, a fantasy, because most serious investors know full well that it has no long-term profitability unless it is built with public money. Alberta is the proponent for now, but there will never be a private proponent.

Can the leader of the official opposition confirm that he thinks this pipeline will never happen and that it is a fantasy?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, this pipeline will get built if a Conservative government is elected, because we are going to get out of the way. Only one authority can approve or block the pipeline, and that authority is the federal government. Section 92A(1) of our Constitution clearly specifies that any project crossing an interprovincial border comes under exclusive federal jurisdiction. Under Bill C-5, the decision rests with the Prime Minister of Canada. If the Prime Minister wants a pipeline, it will happen; if not, it will not happen. This project is going to be extremely cost-effective and profitable without subsidies. All it needs is the green light.

The exclusive power to approve this pipeline is the Prime Minister's under the Constitution and the law. If he wants to green-light it, it will happen. If he wants to block it, he will block it.

As future prime minister, I will green-light this pipeline and allow Canadians to build a pipe to tidewater so that Canadians can be richer, our lives can be more affordable and our economy can be more sovereign.