Debates of Dec. 9th, 2025

Opposition Motion—Pipeline Construction

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member talked about the Liberal decision to kill this pipeline back in November 2016. Of course, the biggest beneficiaries of that decision were Iran, Russia, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and other oil-producing countries around the world.

How important would this pipeline be in accruing benefit across Canada, instead of in those oil-producing dictatorships?

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

Madam Speaker, it would be very beneficial. It would also diversify our economy. The Prime Minister made grand promises that he would diversify our trade and double exports to non-U.S. markets. This is the single biggest export of Canadian goods to non-U.S. markets that we could ever imagine. There is literally not another project that would even come close to the $30-billion-a-year of overseas exports that this project would enable.

The Prime Minister has had eight months since becoming Prime Minister on the promise to build the unimaginable at speeds not seen in generations, and he has not even begun consulting on the pipeline. He has not even stated clearly that he supports a pipeline.

All we are doing now is taking the wording from the MOU he signed on the pipeline, the tanker ban, the issue of carbon capture, the issue of indigenous consultation and the engagement with B.C. so that he can vote for his words. Will he do it?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Madam Speaker, it is always a great opportunity to stand up on opposition day motions, and today is no different.

I will be splitting my time this afternoon with my hon. colleague from Vancouver Granville, who will have a lot to offer in the debate. I would encourage all of my hon. colleagues to listen to his words, as he resides in British Columbia and has a good handle on this particular issue before the House today.

I would like to take just 30 seconds to recognize that my wife Kimberly and I are proud of our beloved Bernese mountain dog, Louis. If members have been watching, they may know that Louis was up for the global parliamentary pet of the year award, competing against entries from the European Parliament and the U.S. Capitol. I am proud to say that Louis represented team Canada well and he won. He is the global parliamentary pet. It is a little source of pride for Kings—Hants, Nova Scotia and, of course, Canada. We are proud of our beloved Bernese.

More importantly, today is a really important opportunity to talk about Canada's natural resource sector writ large. I am going to use my time to talk about how this government and, frankly, all parliamentarians should be focused on helping to support a critical sector for our country.

It bears repeating that Canada has what the world needs. Canada is the fourth-largest oil-producing country in the world. Some Canadians may not know that, but it should be a great source of pride. It is the fifth-largest producer of natural gas. We have the renewable energy the world needs. We are a leader in that, and we can do more. We have the forestry products and critical minerals the world needs, and although it may not be directly tied to energy or natural resources, we have natural endowments, with arable land, in agriculture. We are an agricultural superpower.

Canadians need to be proud of these realities. We are blessed with these natural endowments. I would argue that there is a moral and ethical imperative for us to produce these natural endowments for the benefit of the world, and Canada has a long tradition of doing just that. This government and this Prime Minister are focused on making Canada an energy superpower, above and beyond what we already are.

I highlighted some of the key statistics, and we should take great pride in them, but on this side of the House, we believe the government we can do even more, and not only on energy and critical minerals; we also recognize the moral imperative to reduce GHG emissions and continue the fight on climate change, and that Canada has a responsibility, when it comes to conventional energy and the energy transition, to do both. That has been the focus of the government, the Minister of Energy, the Prime Minister and the entire cabinet. What can we do to help support the conventional energy development that is needed, ensuring that there is a lens on making the lowest-intensity barrel of oil or cubic foot of gas, or promoting renewable energy and nuclear energy?

I have long been a proponent in the House of the need and the role of nuclear energy if we are going to be serious about reaching our net-zero targets by 2050. This government has taken substantial steps toward promoting nuclear energy and building upon the Canadian ingenuity and success that we have in that domain.

I want to take a brief moment to talk about Atlantic Canada's connection to the natural resource sector. We think about the Nova Scotia offshore. Premier Houston has highlighted Wind West and the opportunities that exist in that sector. We have an offshore energy sector that has existed for decades, including in Newfoundland and Labrador, where I had the opportunity to join Cenovus a week and a half ago to announce the extension of West White Rose. These are important projects that matter to the world, with the lowest-intensity barrel of oil in the world. That is something we should be proud of. While the world still needs this product, it ought to be Canadian and it had better be the lowest intensity we can find. We have that ingenuity and expertise.

I think about my graduating class and the privilege of graduating at Hants East Rural High in 2009, home of the Tigers. A lot of the graduates, particularly on the male side of the equation, would have started their careers, particularly those in the trades, in western Canada. There is a recognition in my region of the importance of the natural resource sector across this country, but particularly in western Canada, and what it means to the entire federation.

If we talk about the oil and gas sector, naturally, we think of Alberta and Saskatchewan. It exists elsewhere in the country, but those are the predominant areas. The benefits of the oil and gas sector are not just for those provinces; they are for the entire country because of how equalization works. Provinces that may not be blessed with the same natural endowments can benefit from the revenues that are collected to help pay for the public health care and infrastructure that matter in this country. We take great pride in that in Nova Scotia. It is important.

We also know that work has to be done to reduce emissions at the same time. That is where I would differentiate the Liberal Party from the Conservative Party.

I look at Conservative cousins at the provincial level in this country. They seem to understand the balance between natural resource development and the responsibility to do the work to reduce emissions. We never hear that from the opposition benches here in the House of Commons. A different strain of Conservatism exists in the federal Conservative Party versus the red Tory or Progressive Conservative traditions. That is why, in my own riding, a lot of people in the last election told me they had been a Conservative most of their life, but they do not resemble the way the party is being represented by the leader of the official opposition.

I want to get to the MOU, because that is what before the House. The Conservatives have stood up all day today, talking about the fact that the government should vote for the MOU that was put in place. If the MOU was in its entirety before this place, then yes, the government would be voting in support of it.

It was too cute by half to see the leader of the official opposition move an amendment today to try to add a few more tidbits of the MOU. It was not the whole MOU, but the parts his party could support. My God, they would never put that entire MOU before the House, because they would never admit to the fact that Alberta is focused on working with us to help reduce methane emissions from the oil and gas sector. They would never admit to or support the idea that we need to have a strong, robust industrial carbon price to make sure that we reduce emissions while also promoting conventional energy in this country. They do not want to admit that Premier Smith is supportive of that. That is why they will not put the entire MOU before the House of Commons. That is where the difference is.

Make no mistake that this government supports the ability for a pipeline to be built by a private proponent, with the support of and consultation with the indigenous peoples who would be affected by a pipeline going through their territory and, of course, working in good faith with British Columbia. We are supportive of this. This is exactly why the Prime Minister has been working with Premier Smith in Alberta to develop this MOU.

Something has been tabled before the House that cherry-picks an element the opposition wants to highlight, without giving the entire context of the other considerations in the MOU that are interrelated and connected. That is the type of politics that tries to cherry-pick, which we will see on social media tonight. We have already seen on social media these “gotcha” clips with no context, going out to people in 45 seconds.

It would be a pretty ugly sight to see the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle come up on a screen today, screaming that the Liberals do not support pipelines. That is not what will happen, because we were the ones who supported the TMX pipeline being built and we were the ones who worked with former premier Rachel Notley to make sure that it happened.

Our government has balance. We are trying to make sure that we develop our natural resources, while also having a thought about what we have to do for future generations to reduce emissions. That level of nuance is just not found on the opposition benches whatsoever. I am not saying there are not some individual members on that side who bring that level of nuance to the conversation, but, boy, it cannot be found in the leadership of that party.

For the benefit of Canadians at home, all we have been hearing about is one aspect of the MOU. It is extremely important to note that we would be willing, as a government, to adjust, as necessary, a tanker ban on the Pacific coast. We would not implement emissions caps as long as Alberta is strengthening its industrial carbon price.

Alberta is also committed to working on carbon capture, utilization and storage, a $25-billion to $30-billion industrial project that would be important in sequestering carbon emissions and helping to ensure that Canadian oil is some of the lowest-intensity oil in the world. It is also working on nuclear energy co-operation. I am of the belief that if we are going to completely decarbonize the process of establishing and developing bitumen in western Canada, we are going to have to use nuclear energy, but we are going to have to use energy interties, utilizing the hydroelectricity that exists in British Columbia for the benefit of the entirety of western Canada.

None of this is mentioned in the Conservatives' MOU motion. It has none of the work on the methane reduction or the work on AI data centres and the work we can do together. I am going to leave it at that, but that is the problem and that is why we cannot support the MOU today.

I look forward to questions from my hon. colleagues.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

Madam Speaker, we know that the Liberals are against oil and gas.

It is very easy: If the Prime Minister and Liberal government supports the oil and gas industry, Newfoundland and Labrador's oil and gas is already at tidewater. There are no excuses. They would not have to blame it on another province or first nations. It could not possibly fail if we had the right regulations to support our offshore oil and gas, but Bill C-49, Bill C-69 and the emissions cap are all to block Newfoundland and Labrador's oil and gas.

This pipeline through B.C. is going to be a real struggle, and the Liberals know that it will fail. They are setting it up to fail and they will not vote for it today.

I wonder if the hon. member for Kings—Hants will vote for this motion and support his own MOU, or is his party too fractured?

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

Madam Speaker, I may play the role of Santa and walk a Q-tip over to my hon. colleague to make sure that he can hear me and that there may not be an impediment with the speech I just gave. I made it very clear that if the Conservative Party had tabled the entire MOU before the House, we would be gladly supporting it. There is an interconnectivity to this. We do support oil and gas. I spoke very proudly about my own home province and the connection to my own riding, where I have a lot of workers who work in the natural resource sector. Whether it is in his home province or western Canada, we are proud as a government about this.

The Conservatives come in, cherry-pick and do not allow the elements that support emissions reductions. That is the party that is fractured. They could never have supported the MOU. They do not support the MOU because of the talk about industrial carbon pricing and methane reductions. They do not have the support of their party to stand up and support the MOU in the House, which is why they cherry-pick.

Quickly, on Newfoundland and Labrador, I was in St. John's to celebrate Cenovus's extension of West White Rose. We fully support the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore oil and gas sector. Our government is willing to work, as I have made very clear, and willing to have conversations with Premier Wakeham's government on Bay du Nord. We believe in the sector.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie recently made a public statement on the television program Tout le monde en parle. He also published an open letter saying that the agreement was very bad—

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

Hon. members, could I actually hear the question being asked and allow the hon. parliamentary secretary to hear the question?

The hon. member for Jonquière.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

As I was saying, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie has publicly stated many times that the agreement is a very bad one and that removing the emissions cap and stepping back from clean electricity were harming the environment.

In all sincerity, I want to ask my colleague how he can support such a measure.

Earlier, I asked the Minister of the Environment, Climate Change and Nature to explain to me how she can reconcile two things that are unreconcilable. I want my colleague to tell me how he can see this agreement as something that is good for the environment.

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

Madam Speaker, the proposed agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Alberta includes some very important measures for the environment. It includes, in particular, the Government of Alberta's commitment to increase industrial carbon pricing. That is a key element that will help us ensure that we reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Other commitments include working with the Government of Canada on methane regulations as well as carbon capture, utilization and storage.

These measures are absolutely crucial. The Government of Alberta must work with the Government of Canada on federal measures and initiatives. Our government must be able to work with the Government of Alberta to achieve our energy and environmental goals.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is a very simple debate. In the past, the Liberals have cancelled pipelines. Now the Prime Minister is saying that he signed this memorandum of understanding to build a pipeline to the west. Canadians sense the hypocrisy.

Do the Liberals support building a pipeline to the west, yes or no?

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

Madam Speaker, yes, we do, with the conditions we have laid out in the MOU, which are working with indigenous communities across this country, working in good faith with the British Columbian government and also ensuring that Alberta commits to the elements that are in the MOU, which the Conservative party failed to put before the House verbatim.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in the House today to speak on behalf of and for British Columbians on building a united country and against a divisive motion from a divisive and divided Conservative Party, whose members cannot figure out whether they support British Columbia from one day to the next.

It has become clear, from looking at the flawed text of this motion, that it belies a very important truth, which is that the members of Parliament from the opposite side from British Columbia are not willing to stand up to their leader and for their constituents and for their province. That any member of Parliament from British Columbia would support a motion that has an impact on their home province, with no mention of working with that province, is shameful.

I could not imagine a situation in which this would happen in any other jurisdiction. Let us talk about Alberta, for example. It would be like British Columbia saying that it would like to do something involving Alberta but it will not talk to Alberta, and then expecting the federal government to say yes. Perhaps it would be like talking about building a pipeline or infrastructure through the province of Quebec or Ontario and not having British Columbia as part of the conversation.

This is exactly what the Conservatives are willing to do. They are willing to sacrifice British Columbia's priorities and the very mention of British Columbia in order to advance division in this country, drive people apart and do things that are contrary to what Canadians actually want.

This weekend, like many of us, I was back in my constituency, and I had the privilege of hosting my holiday open house. Many of my constituents came through. They have differing points of view on pipelines. They have differing points of view as to whether there should be one pipeline, two pipelines or no pipelines. However, they were united on one thing. They were united in saying that in order for major projects in this country to get built, they must have the participation of indigenous communities and that the provinces implicated should be involved to ensure it is done correctly.

Conservatives ignore that. Conservatives have no interest in that. This motion has no interest in asking whether British Columbia should be at the table and should be involved or whether British Columbians care about this and their opinions should be part of this conversation. Instead of uniting behind the shared goals of building a strong country, ensuring climate change is part of our path to building prosperity, ensuring indigenous communities are actively engaged and at the table with us and having a partner in British Columbia, the opposition motion seeks to play petty politics. What we have learned to expect from the Leader of the Opposition is petty politics.

Canadians have rejected that time and again. Indeed, even in his own previous constituency, his voters rejected his politics of division, because Canadians understand that building things together is the best way to move things forward. They understand that building things together in a co-operative confederation, as the Prime Minister has noted, is how things get done. Nothing should get built without the participation of the jurisdiction and first nations. We have all made that clear. It is how the federation is supposed to work.

If we actually took that seriously, we would look very carefully at what this MOU seeks to do, the language of which has been parsed by the opposition and put in the form of some kind of motion that is supposed to be some kind of television gotcha for the Leader of the Opposition. It is extremely dangerous politics because it ignores the fundamental truth that Canadians have all spoken to, which is that we want to build big things in this country and the best way to build big things quickly is to do them together.

If members want proof of that, look at the major projects that have already been announced in British Columbia, which are substantial initiatives that are going to transform the economy of British Columbia. Whether it is LNG phase two, the Red Chris mine expansion, the north coast transmission line phase one and phase three or even the Ksi Lisims LNG project, these are projects that happened with the active participation and consent of British Columbia and first nations. That is how we get things built quickly.

If we want to use the Conservatives' plan and the track record of the Leader of the Opposition of having built nothing at all, except for perhaps six homes when he was minister of housing, then let us follow their path. Let us follow the path of running into legal challenge after legal challenge because they do not understand how the federation works.

If we do what Canadians want, which is to build things in a meaningful, thoughtful process that is not only well-intentioned but has the capacity to deliver with speed, then the Prime Minister's path is the one that Canadians would like us to follow. I heard that from my constituents in spades. They said they elected a government that understood nuance, that understood the need to co-operate and that understood the need to be able to negotiate and also to build. They did not choose a government that was going to drive wedges between Canadians and try to make things, everything, really, about a clip on social media.

Making Canada an energy superpower while respecting indigenous rights and provincial jurisdiction and also fighting climate change requires nuance. It requires hard work and it requires the ability to work with others, with jurisdictions and with first nations. Conservatives have tried to frame this motion as if it is the entirety of the MOU signed with Alberta, and it is not even close. They have chosen to cherry-pick and manipulate the original text. They are deliberately misrepresenting this agreement because they think Canadians are stupid, and Canadians are not. Canadians understand the importance of complexity and of working through complexity with intelligence—

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe it is under the Standing Orders. This is a misrepresentation of the way Conservatives feel about Canadians. We do not, in fact, believe Canadians are stupid—

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

That is debate, and the hon. member knows that. We are not debating the issue.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to see a member from British Columbia in the House. I look forward to the questions that I am certain he will ask. I look forward to answering them.

The motion that has been put forward actually leaves out the conditions that Alberta must meet before the federal government would support any such project. That is an important consideration. When we leave out the details and try to make things about simple gotcha moments, nothing gets built and nothing happens.

Remember that in the MOU that was signed, Alberta has made commitments to achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, building Pathways Plus carbon capture, which is going to be the largest in the world; developing nuclear power generation in collaboration with the federal government; cutting methane emissions, which are 28 times more potent than CO2, by 75% of 2014 levels by 2030; and raising the industrial carbon price to $130 per tonne, more than six times the effective rate.

None of that matters to Conservatives. None of it does because it is inconvenient. What is inconvenient are a story and facts that show we can actually build things in this country and we can actually get things done by using rigour, collaboration, intellectual horsepower and the collective will of Canadians to get things done. The projects I spoke about earlier that are going to be built in British Columbia demonstrate that when we respect jurisdictions, uphold indigenous rights and work collaboratively, we can accelerate development on major projects while building trust and delivering real economic benefits.

On November 27, the Leader of the Opposition stood in this place and said that the Prime Minister should “get out of the way”, and he justified ramming a pipeline through British Columbia. That is not how we practice co-operative federalism. The Prime Minister has reaffirmed in the chamber that we will obtain free, prior and informed consent from first nations and that the Government of British Columbia has to agree before any project moves forward.

That is what nation-building projects do. They bring Canadians together, not pit us against one another. We should be looking, in this moment of crisis, this moment of international crisis, at ways to work together and to bring jurisdictions together, which I hope Alberta and British Columbia will do, despite the best efforts of the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition.

We are going to be there to work with British Columbia, with Alberta, with all provinces and with Canadians and indigenous peoples across this country to ensure that when major projects get built, they get built with the right intentions, with the right plan and the right ability to be successful and to be successful quickly.

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

Madam Speaker, I think my colleague missed the amendment that we put forward to the motion today, which talks about the Conservative commitment to indigenous ownership, partnerships and benefits, and engaging with British Columbia in a trilateral discussion.

There has never been a prime minister in the history of Canada who has had a more favourable social climate to build projects than the Prime Minister today. The Prime Minister could have used the emergency powers. He did not even need Bill C-5. He could have moved forward with a pipeline right away because Canadians are concerned about sovereignty.

When the government accuses the Conservatives of playing games, the Prime Minister did not even do what he said he was going to do during the election, and that is getting projects built. Why is the government so slow to do anything? Why are they holding Canada back when our sovereignty is at risk?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his passion. I wish he showed the same passion for working collaboratively to get things built in this country.

As we all know, in the decades that the Leader of the Opposition has been the leader, under his personal watch, nothing has ever gotten built. In the six months that the Prime Minister has been the Prime Minister, in British Columbia alone, we have seen major projects approved, with the consent of first nations and with the participation of British Columbia. Those are meaningful projects that will create billions of dollars for British Columbia and for British Columbians.

That is how we get things built in this country, by working together, by actually looking at what it is going to take to get something done, and then by doing it.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have publicly supported the MOU, and if the Leader of the Opposition had included the MOU in its complete form, I would have supported that as well.

My colleague from British Columbia is right: The Leader of the Opposition either uses slogans or plays politics. If the member could explain a little more how he is playing politics with British Columbians, that would be great.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, my hon. friend's question reminds us of exactly what Canadians chose.

British Columbians chose to elect more members of Parliament on this side of the House than ever before, because they saw a Prime Minister who understood the urgency of working with British Columbia. They saw a Prime Minister who understood the urgency of building things, with the ability, the experience and the know-how to build things and to build them well.

They looked at the choice that was offered to them in the Leader of the Opposition, and they said, “Absolutely not. We will not allow our country to be run on Twitter and on slogans. We want responsible grown-ups. We want people who actually know how to get things done.”

They looked at the track record, experience, integrity and ability to bring people together, and that is what Canadians chose.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, the comments shared by the member are quite refreshing.

It was impressive that the Conservatives chose to amend their own motion but still came up short. What is even more interesting is that constituents within the riding of Waterloo recognize that the Conservatives actually never have a plan for the environment.

Today, we see that when the Conservatives bring something forward, they do not recognize the importance of an industrial carbon price actually making our economy and our country more competitive. It is really important that we recognize the importance of working with different levels of government and with indigenous communities, another concept that the Conservatives just cannot understand.

I would like to hear the member's comments on the importance of having a competitive industry and a competitive economy, especially today, more than ever.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, in order to be competitive, we have to understand the rules of the game, how to play the game and how to win.

In order to be able to win, we have to understand that building things in a way that is responsible for the future is critical. In this MOU, we have managed to get Alberta to agree to cutting methane emissions, the first time in an incredibly long time this conversation has even surfaced. It certainly never surfaced when the party opposite was in power, and it is a major accomplishment for competitiveness in this country.

It is going to make Canadian industry better able to compete globally. It is going to give Canadian producers what they need in order to be able to be successful. We are going to work with them. We are going to work with producers, farmers and the Province of Alberta to ensure that to bring these measures to life, they have the support and the commitment they need from the federal government.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise and to speak to our opposition day motion. I will be sharing my time with the great member for North Island—Powell River.

It is particularly significant that I am speaking today because, for those who do not know, oil was first discovered in North America in my riding. That is right. In Oil Springs, in 1861, the Fairbanks bought the property, there was a huge gusher, and it was the start of the oil industry in North America. The precursor to Imperial Oil was Standard Oil. The companies trucked that oil from Oil Springs right to Standard Oil, which became Imperial Oil. They took the technology developed in my riding to 86 countries. There is the Oil Museum of Canada located in Oil Springs, where people can see all this amazing technology and where it all began.

I am going to start there, and then I am going to say, “I love pipelines.” I love pipelines not just because I am a Conservative. I love pipelines because, as an engineer, I have built pipelines and operated pipelines, and because pipelines are the key to prosperity and for Canadians to have the social services that we all value so much. That is why I am happy to rise today and speak to this motion.

This motion is important. Basically, we know that in the past, the Liberals cancelled pipelines. They cancelled the northern gateway pipeline, and they cancelled the energy east pipeline. They cancelled 18 LNG projects that were on the books in 2015 when I was elected. We know that at the time, the current Prime Minister actually testified at the industry committee that he was supportive of cancelling northern gateway. When he now comes and says that the Liberals are going to build the unimaginable at speeds we have never seen before, and that the government now has an MOU with Alberta to build a pipeline to take our oil to the west, we can understand why Canadians are a bit skeptical. Why the flip-flop? Is it ever really going to happen?

We know there is huge division already within the Liberal caucus. The climate caucus is saying that this is a total violation of the climate plan that the Liberals had and of the fact that they said, even in the budget, that they would not subsidize fossil fuels anymore. We had the convicted felon, the former minister of Canadian identity and culture, step down from his position because he saw the total flip-flop. People cannot believe that there is sincerity there, especially when there is a different message being sent to B.C. from the one being sent to Alberta and to the rest of the country. The Liberals are saying to the B.C. folks, “Do not worry about it. It is never really going to be built. There is a lot that has to happen for it to go on.” To everyone else, it looks like they are building a pipeline. That is why we are here.

We have brought the language from the MOU. The motion states:

That the House:

(a) take note of the Memorandum of Understanding between Canada and Alberta of November 27, 2025; and

(b) support the construction of one or more pipelines enabling the export of at least one million barrels a day of low-emission Alberta bitumen from a strategic deepwater port on the British Columbia coast to reach Asian markets, including through an appropriate adjustment to the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, while respecting the duty to consult Indigenous peoples.

All day, during the debate, we have had excuse after excuse. This is the Liberals' MOU. It is their language, and they are saying, “We really cannot support the motion, because the Conservatives did not put the whole entirety of the MOU in here.” Well, for Canadians, the question is simple to answer: Do they want to build a pipeline, yes or no? Either they do or they do not, and the rest of it is just word salad.

Now, how did the Liberals cancel all these previous projects? They did it through regulations that take six years to get a project approved and cost billions of dollars. There was Bill C-69, the “no more pipelines” bill. We warned the Liberals for 10 years that this was going to be disastrous, that foreign investors would leave and that nothing would get built, and here we are. Then the Prime Minister had to ask the Conservatives to support him to put across Bill C-5, which allows them to exempt any project in the national interest from all of the horrible legislation that the Liberals put in place over the last 10 years, including the tanker ban, the “no more pipelines” bill, the industrial emissions cap and all of these kinds of things that have discouraged the kind of prosperity that oil and gas has brought to Canada and the money that we need in order to keep supporting systems that are struggling, like our health care system.

If we look at what could be done, what we could build that is unimaginable, at speeds never before seen, well, we could be like Germany, which permitted and built an LNG terminal in 194 days, or about seven months. This government has been here eight months, and it has not built anything. In fact, the things it has announced are things that were already in the pipeline. I am sorry about the pun, but they were already on the way.

We had offers to give our LNG to other countries. Germany wanted us to provide it with LNG so that it could get off heavy oil and coal from Russia. It was going to pay us $60 billion a year, but we said there was no business case, so Australia took that deal. Then Japan came and wanted to give us $60 billion a year for our LNG, but again, we said there was no business case, and Qatar took that deal. Then the Netherlands came and offered us $60 billion a year for our LNG, but the Saudis took that deal, because we did not. Can members imagine having $180 billion a year more revenue into the country?

We talk about the deficit, and we talk about its inflationary effect and how it is going to burden generations in the future. There is a solution to that, which is to increase revenue so that we can actually afford the social services and so that we can pay down this deficit, yet we said no to all of those things. It also would have helped the planet. LNG replacing heavy oil and coal cuts the carbon footprint by a factor of four, and that is significant.

In terms of this MOU, there are lots of things in it, such as getting rid of the clean electricity regulation and getting rid of the emissions cap. They did agree to raise the industrial carbon tax, which I am not a fan of. I think that just increases the cost of everything. The people who pay the industrial carbon tax just pass the cost on to the consumer, so I do not agree, but in order to get the pipeline approved, Alberta has said yes to that.

Now, there is resistance rising up already, as there always will be. If we want to have 100% of Canadians, indigenous people and B.C. always give their consent to everything, we will never build anything. That is why, according to the law, the power to build something that goes between provinces is exclusively the Prime Minister's power. He can do this, especially with the exemptions that Bill C-5 allows. He has the ability to do it if he has the will to do it, and that is what the debate is about today: Does he really have the will, or is it all smoke and mirrors, just another bait and switch?

We know there is a lot at stake. We have lost 3,000 jobs in the auto sector and 1,000 steelworker jobs, and 34 paper mills have closed, all at Christmas time. The future of our social safety net is at risk. We have an increase in poverty in this country, homeless encampments, food bank lineups, and seniors who cannot afford to eat and heat, yet there is still a doubt as to whether anything is going to happen here. Even with this MOU, they are talking about how, in seven months, they will have a consultation to start something in two years. Well, that does not sound like build, build, build at unimaginable speeds. That sounds like zero progress or lots of delays and negative acceleration.

What are the Liberals waiting for? We are tired of the hypocrisy, and we are tired of hearing them talk out of both sides of their mouth, so the official opposition today is going to force them to say, “Yes, we want a pipeline,” or “No, we do not want a pipeline.” Are the Liberals serious, or are they not?

We, on this side of the House, do want to expand oil and gas. We believe that building a pipeline to get our oil to Asian markets will increase revenue by $30 billion. We could use that. The country needs it. Canadians need it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is truly amazing. We can think about it in this sense: The Conservative leader sat in government for 10 years, and not one inch of pipeline was ever built to tidewater, not one inch. Now that the Conservatives are in opposition, they feel they can just bang their heels together and it will just appear overnight.

We have an agreement, an MOU, signed with the Province of Alberta, which is a very significant accomplishment. There are other premiers who support it as well. On the other hand, the leader of the Conservative Party is saying, “No, no, no. We do not support the MOU.”

I think the member would do a great service to all of Canada if she stood up and answered a very specific question: Do she and the Conservative Party support the MOU that was signed by the Premier of Alberta, who is a Progressive Conservative, and the Government of Canada? Does she support the MOU?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Madam Speaker, there can be no doubt that the Conservatives want to build a pipeline. We want to build a pipeline to the west.

However, one interesting thing in this MOU is that the Liberals are willing to lift the exemption on the tanker ban. Let us think about the tanker ban. Right now, the only people who cannot have oil tankers are Canadians. The U.S. has three refineries right in that area that are shipping tankers all the time, so it is just a punishment on us. We should not have to wait two years to lift that exemption. We could do that today.

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

Madam Speaker, I am scared. I am scared for the future of my children, because the Government of Canada is not doing good enough.

As the member mentioned in her remarks, we turned down three major natural resource deals, which would have lifted children out of poverty and lowered global emissions, yet the Liberals said no.

When I was a staffer, the Liberals put forward the most divisive and burdensome regulatory approach, which still exists today. Then they come around to say that they are going to build a pipeline and fix our economy. They are not. What they are doing is playing a game of tightrope with the future of Canadians by not moving forward on natural resource projects, not removing the barriers to building and not giving Canada the foundation of success it needs.

Would the member comment on those points?