Debates of Dec. 9th, 2025

Opposition Motion—Pipeline Construction

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

Madam Speaker, I love the passion of my colleague. He is from B.C. He is representing people in B.C., most of whom want to see this pipeline get done.

Definitely, I think we need these jobs in Canada at this point. The Liberals will tell us that the jobs were created, but they are part-time jobs. They are, basically, Christmas retail jobs. We need the kinds of jobs we would get from the pipeline and all of the other projects I talked about. We need to build, build, build.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, earlier, I asked the leader of the official opposition whether he was aware that no proponents are interested in this project right now. He referred many times to the government's imaginary pipeline. His answer was to tell me that if the government gets out of the way, then a proponent will come forward. We know that this project is not viable. In order to be viable, the pipeline would have to be in use for 40 years. It seems unlikely that we will still be using oil 40 years from now.

I would like my colleague, who is an engineer, to tell me how she can see any practical advantages in something that even her own leader thinks is far-fetched.

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

Madam Speaker, all of the environmental assessments and the consultations with indigenous peoples have been completed for the Northern Gateway pipeline. We could start that project today and have the pipeline built in about three years.

I think the Liberals lack political will. The Liberals are saying one thing to Alberta and another to British Columbia.

I think that Canadians want to know whether the Liberals support the pipeline project, yes or no.

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, on July 20, 1871, British Columbia became the sixth province to sign on to the audacious vision that was Canada as laid out by the fathers of Confederation, a vision that was as bold as it was courageous, which was to create a new nation, one that would stretch from the Atlantic to the Pacific, through the Rockies, across the Prairies and over the Canadian Shield to unite these small, disparate and insignificant colonies of what was then British North America. It was perhaps the greatest nation-building project the world had ever seen.

Over a century and a half later, we owe much of our prosperity, identity and independence to them and those who followed in their footsteps. They built and defended this country from the ground up. From the national railway through two world wars, their determination and perseverance shaped not only the land around them but also those who called it home. What has happened to that tenacity, that fortitude, that resolve, the ability to get things done? Where are our leaders, our statesmen for a new century, those who could live up to the lions of Canadian history, such as Laurier, Macdonald and W.A.C. Bennett? Where are the leaders who can rediscover the boldness and audacity that built this country and couple it with a vision as befitting a nation as vast and bursting with potential as our own? That vision starts with getting back to the basics, with actually building things.

In the late 1800s, Canada was a small country, divided by language and having a much larger and more powerful neighbour to the south, yet, in that historical context, we completed what many consider to be one of the great political and engineering feats of the time, the Canadian Pacific Railway. Today, the Liberal government cannot even bring itself to openly support a pipeline. It is content instead to sign vague, indeterminate pieces of paper, promising to one day maybe consider building a pipeline to the Pacific. The consequences of this lack of vision and follow-through are very real.

Today, our lack of market access forces us to sell our oil, our number one export, at a massive discount to the United States, a reality that has cost us tens of thousands of jobs and $70 million each day, or $25 billion every single year. At a time of predatory and hostile U.S. trade action, which is a deliberate attempt to destroy our forestry, steel, aluminum and automotive sectors, we are essentially giving our oil to the Americans on the cheap because the Liberal government does not have the political fortitude to get a Canadian pipeline built, a pipeline that would secure our economic sovereignty, energy independence and the leverage that we need over the United States.

However, this is not really a new issue. Back when Macdonald was first proposing the Canadian Pacific Railway and undertaking, as I mentioned, what many thought could not be done, there were loud voices, mainly in the Liberal Party at the time, that demanded that the east-west railway be built through the much easier terrain of the United States. They argued it would have been politically easier, and undoubtedly more affordable, and on those two points they were right, but it would have come at the expense of Canadian sovereignty and left us a mere dependent, a colony of the Americans. Fortunately, our leaders in that era had the foresight and the passionate devotion to our national interest to see through the railway that we now call the ribbon of steel on an all-Canadian route.

Unfortunately, the Liberal government today has essentially accomplished the exact opposite and is moving us in the opposite direction. Let us think about how ridiculous this is. Canada has the third-largest reserves of oil on the entire planet, yet we are still importing oil from repressive, dictatorial regimes, such as Saudi Arabia. Meanwhile, as we have allowed our Canadian oil industry to atrophy, American oil output has grown by more than 50%. What are we doing? We have the oil, the know-how, the skill and the determination of the Canadian people. I can guarantee that. All we are missing are the politicians with the courage and vision to get the job done.

To be clear, and this is an important point, the world needs more energy. It needs it today, and it is going to continue to need it for decades to come. In fact, the International Energy Agency predicts that global energy demand will continue to grow well past 2050, and more than a quarter of that total energy demand will continue to come in the form of oil. The problem is that that increase in demand is concentrated in Asian markets, markets that, without pipelines, Canada has little to no access to.

Today, over 90% of our country's oil exports are sold to one country, the United States. Make no mistake, if we do not get these pipelines built, if Canadian oil stays in the ground, which, by the way, I think is the true objective of at least some members of the Liberal caucus, those investment dollars and jobs will go elsewhere. They will go to brutal, repressive regimes, such as Venezuela and Iran, to fund the priorities of their governments, which are to repress peaceful dissent and export terrorism and hard drugs, instead of supporting the priorities of our government, which are health care, education, roads and the support of our brave men and women in uniform.

Here is the truth: No one does environmental stewardship and safety better than Canada and Canadians. As long as the world needs and demands oil, as much of it as possible should come from right here in Canada. To do that, we need pipelines.

Unfortunately, instead of showing leadership on this file or following in the nation-building footsteps of those who built this country, the Liberal government has done the exact opposite by axing the northern gateway pipeline; killing energy east; and introducing the bill known as the no more pipelines bill, Bill C-69, and the tanker ban, Bill C-48 as well as the industrial carbon tax. It is a suite of policies compiled by design for one purpose, which is to kill Canada's oil and gas industry to leave our most valuable resource, asset and commodity in the ground.

Let us take the tanker ban as one example. Why is it that 24.4 million tonnes of foreign oil are allowed to transit Canada's east coast, including down the St. Lawrence River in Quebec, yet on B.C.'s north coast, this is banned? There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that suggests that tanker traffic in northwestern B.C. presents a greater risk to the environment than anywhere else. In fact, because there is a lack of maritime traffic in general, the exact opposite is true. Here is the kicker: There are already tankers off of B.C.'s coast. Four tankers each day, filled to the brim with American oil, depart Alaska, heading south alongside the very waters where Canadian tanker traffic carrying Canadian oil is currently banned.

It continues a trend of the Liberal government pursuing ideological policies and virtue signalling to one group or another over straightforward, common-sense results. However, there is good news. Canadians are seeing through the spin. In recent polling, 67% of British Columbians believe that new pipelines are important to Canada's economic future, and 54% are confident that pipelines can be built while protecting the environment.

Pipelines are the most environmentally friendly and sensitive way to transport this commodity, yet we have the B.C. Premier saying that the pipeline will “never be built”, and the Prime Minister has been unwilling to assert the nation-building and constitutional roles of the federal government to get this project done.

When it comes to building this pipeline, a majority of British Columbians and Canadians agree, but most importantly, it is in the essential national interests of our country. The truth is that the silver lining to this challenge lies in the solution. We do not need the government to step up in any particular way. We just need the government to get out of the way to give this country back to those who built it and continue to build it, the people.

That is why I urge every member of the House, regardless of their province, party or ideology, to vote with us for Canadian workers, prosperity, economic sovereignty, energy independence and building things, including pipelines, in this country once again.

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

Madam Speaker, the member made comments about the differential. I agree that it is important to manage the differential between WTI and WCS, or presumably between Brent and WCS, given that he is talking about a pipeline to the west coast. The differential is driven by quality differences, such as the sulphur content and the gravity of it, as well as transportation costs.

I wonder if the member could explain what he thinks would be an appropriate differential, either to WTI or Brent, as he sees fit.

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, what it comes down to is that we should be getting the top price for Canadian oil that is possible. We are going to get that top price only if we have access to world markets.

If we allow ourselves to be backed into a corner for the Americans to have ultimate leverage over our number one export, we are not going to be able to get the top price. This is why we need to get pipelines built; we need to get a pipeline built to the Pacific and finally create more Canadian jobs, create more Canadian revenues and start building things in this country once again.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon South, SK]

Madam Speaker, if we look back into history, how we built this country, I am not sure we can build the country anymore. Billions of dollars have been lost because of Liberal policies, such as Bill C-69 and Bill C-48. In my province, we have uranium mines ready to go, but because of these policies, they are years in the waiting.

Will this pipeline ever get built with the current government in place?

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I cannot predict the future, but I will tell the House one thing: It needs to be built. It needs to be built for the national interest of this country. We cannot continue to be an economic dependant of the United States, an economic colony of the United States. We need to take control of our own future and start building things again. Whether it is mines in Saskatchewan, pipelines in B.C. or nuclear power plants in Ontario, we need to get building again in this country. Unfortunately, I think that only with a new Conservative government will it actually get done.

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

Madam Speaker, what elements of the MOU that Premier Danielle Smith and the government have committed to does the member not support? It is very clear, as he reads the MOU, that we are willing to support a pipeline to tidewater in the Pacific. We believe it has to be a private proponent, that we have to have indigenous co-operation and, obviously, buy-in and dialogue with British Columbia. What elements of the MOU does he not support? This is why the Conservative Party has not actually put this before the House today: The party cannot agree on certain elements.

Which element does he not agree with in the MOU that Premier Danielle Smith signed on to herself?

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, look, the point the Liberals do not understand is that we should not even need an MOU in this country to build things. A private proponent proposed a pipeline and got the project approved by the National Energy Board. The project met all the requisite requirements but was killed for political reasons by the Liberal government.

One should not need to go on bended knee to the Prime Minister to beg for a project to get built. We are supposed to be a first world country, not a banana republic. We set the highest environmental standards in the world. If one meets them, one should be allowed to build the project, whether it is a mine, a pipeline or a new housing development. We need to get things done.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if Conservatives who have been debating this motion today remember the Conservative Party platform from 2011, which would have prohibited any pipeline to the northern B.C. coast to ship any diluted bitumen to China. The Conservative Party policy at that time was that we should not ship diluted bitumen to any country with lower environmental standards for our refineries.

I am just wondering if anyone remembers that.

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was 21 at the time, if I am doing the math correctly, so I am not familiar with all the ins and outs of what was or was not in the platform back in 2011.

What I can tell the member is that we support a pipeline. We support getting top dollar for Canada's number one export, expanding our trade markets, becoming less dependent on the United States, actually getting things done, following the science and the evidence, and not making political decisions that kill individual projects.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg North.

Before I entered politics earlier this year, I was a regular commentator on political strategy. One thing I tried to do in my appearances, particularly on a popular political podcast, The Strategists, was to lift the hood and show how and why political strategic decisions get made. It was my belief that by identifying and naming the strategies and tactics, I was helping people see what was actually happening, and I was helping people defend themselves against those strategies and tactics being used on them. Sometimes what I explained would allow listeners to keep from being fooled by unscrupulous politicians, and sometimes what I explained would allow listeners to keep from being fooled by themselves.

While speaking about this Conservative motion, I can do a service to Canadians by explaining the tactics this motion attempts to use and what these tactics reveal. I also think that, while speaking about this Conservative motion, I can do a service to Conservatives by explaining how, at this point, they are most certainly fooling themselves.

Let us start here. If the goal is to get a pipeline built, there is no train of logic that leads to either the original or the amended motion before us today. The Conservatives should know very well the risks of plowing ahead thoughtlessly when it comes to pipelines. In 2016, the Federal Court of Appeal deemed the phase four consultations undertaken by the Harper government on the Northern Gateway pipeline, a pipeline project I worked on, insufficient. It said, “Canada fell short of the mark.”

In Canada, to get things built, we need to work with indigenous communities, show respect to indigenous communities and take the duty to consult seriously. While I am glad for the Conservative amendment, merely appending “while respecting the duty to consult Indigenous peoples” to a motion with a predetermined outcome falls laughably short of the mark.

In Canada, to get things built, to de-risk activity, we need to work with all affected communities. Ignoring the role of British Columbians in this conversation does not make a project more likely to succeed. Ignoring environmental concerns does not make a project more likely to succeed. This creates conditions that would concern any investor. By the way, Pathways requires a price on carbon, so the amendment does not take a coherent policy position.

Smart money knows we do not ram projects through. A yes vote on this motion would antagonize stakeholders and undermine the important conversations to be had by Canada, Alberta, British Columbia and indigenous peoples. It would make getting to an accord harder. A yes vote would make a pipeline less likely.

How about a no vote? A no vote could be interpreted, and would certainly be spun by the Conservatives, as the government not supporting a pipeline, but nothing could be further from the truth. I will say now, and I will say clearly on behalf of our government, that we support a pipeline. We support the MOU. We support the entirety of the MOU.

If people believe government does not support a pipeline, if companies even have creeping doubt about the government's support, it makes it less likely for a private proponent to come forward, which is one of the conditions of the pipeline proceeding under the memorandum with Alberta. A no vote would make a pipeline less likely.

If a yes vote hurts the project and a no vote hurts the project, what is the point of the motion? This brings us back to strategy. The point of the motion is to provoke divisions and to upset a careful balance. It is to cherry-pick one part of one side of the ledger, building a pipeline, and to focus on one possible resolution, a pipeline that requires an easing of the tanker ban. It is to ignore the rest of a thoughtfully constructed and far-reaching MOU that has the support of this government caucus. The very point is to put the government in a no-win situation. The very point is to try to create a situation in which there is division in the government ranks.

Here, I want to talk about how deep the Conservatives have fallen into their own echo chamber and how they no longer see the forest for the trees. The division they seek, the division that is frankly on display in their own party as they lose members, is one they believe will help their political fortunes. It is a game to them, a game in which there is a winner and a loser. However, with their motion, the loser is Canada and the game hurts this country. The game reduces the chances of a pipeline being built and exposes something they probably did not want exposed: Their interest is coming out on top in a zero-sum fight with the Liberals rather than defending our country at a very challenging time.

Rather than putting nation over party, the Conservatives have put party over nation. To them, the motion is solely and exclusively a political strategy; it serves no other purpose. “Yes” hurts Canada and “no” hurts Canada, but they brought the motion forward anyhow. The win Conservatives seek is for themselves, not for Canada.

There are two ways to detect the influence of a political strategy: We can work backward from the action and figure out what conditions would need to be present to arrive at that action, or we can work forward from a series of stated motives and see if a coherent chain can lead us to the present place. In each case, a deviation shows strategy at work; a deviation reveals true intentions.

The Conservatives' action here, in this motion, does not match the words saying that they deeply care about getting a pipeline built. We must ask what they do deeply care about.

The Conservatives have fooled themselves. They have conflated their interests with Canada's interests. They have come to a place in which they believe that anything that is good for them is inherently good for the country, and they believe this motion to be good for them. I ask them to step back and ask themselves, when they really think about it, if any outcome of this motion would be good for getting a pipeline built or good for the country.

I will close by saying that there is another possibility, but it is one I discount: The Conservatives simply made a terrible mistake, they did not realize that either a yes or a no vote would reduce the chances of a pipeline being built, and they are sincere in simply wanting clarity for all. I do not believe the Leader of the Opposition to be a stupid or thoughtless man, but he has put his cunning in service of his political movement rather than in service of this country, and I believe that to be terrible judgment.

Canadians seek serious leadership in these times, and I am glad the Prime Minister offers that leadership. I do not believe the opposition has shown such leadership today, but I do believe in the immense capacity of people to change and improve. It is why I am a Liberal.

I ask my colleagues to step back from the brink and remind themselves of the moment we are in, with a trade war with the United States; an increasingly dangerous globe; and a western world beset by anti-immigrant and anti-intellectual forces, often driven clandestinely by our geopolitical rivals, who love nothing more than to poke at our divisions. I ask if it is not possible for them to take a better, more collaborative and more pro-Canada approach.

As I see it right now, the Conservatives' strategy reveals everything. Under the current leader, the Conservatives are treating matters of nation as political games to be won. The actual question in front of the House is, is the Leader of the Opposition acting as a serious man? Does his leadership reflect a serious party? The answer, unfortunately, came the minute he put forward this motion, and the answer is no. The motion does not reflect a serious party. The motion reflects a party that is addicted to the game of politics and has forgotten how to fight for outcomes and ideas.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I found it very interesting that the member talked about strategies, but it is clear to me that the Liberals would like to spin the vote into anything but division within their own caucus.

My constituents in Alberta do not trust the Liberal government to ever build a pipeline, and that goes for Conservatives across this country. None of them believe it will happen. We were very surprised to see the Liberals put an MOU forward, which dangled the possibility that they could build a pipeline. However, we were not shocked to see many Liberals, including the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, the former minister of the environment in the government, and the member for Victoria, along with many other members, say that, no, this does not mean that a pipeline is going to be built and no, they do not support building a pipeline. This vote forces the Liberals to walk their talk.

Why can the Liberals not stand up and vote for this non-binding motion that only asks them to do what they claim they are promising to do?

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Madam Speaker, this government would be very happy to support a motion for the entire memorandum of understanding. The memorandum of understanding is a balance that makes sure we are striking interests from coast to coast to coast and doing it in a way that strengthens our economy, strengthens our environment and makes us less dependent on the United States.

It is an excellent memorandum of understanding. Part of it is a pipeline, which we fully support. Honestly, this is just a continuation of the games. If the Conservatives do not want to play games, bring us a motion for the entire MOU.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I find it rather surprising to hear the government say that all of its efforts in Alberta will ultimately enable it to free itself from the trade dispute with the Americans, or at least mitigate the effects of that dispute, when we know that 60% of all profits made by big oil go to the United States.

Does my colleague not find it a bit counterproductive to put money into unproven carbon capture and sequestration strategies only to further feed the greedy oil sector, which is primarily American? Is that not counterproductive in the context of a trade dispute?

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question. One thing that struck me about the Conservative amendment was that it had carbon capture and sequestration as something they could support, but it did not talk about a price on carbon, which is essential for carbon capture and sequestration to work. Otherwise, what happens is that we are subsidizing oil companies instead of making oil companies pay a carbon price, which is what makes the Pathways project economical.

I think I agree on some of these components. I will say, and I want to underline, that the benefits of a strong oil and gas sector are felt very strongly by my home province. We see it every day. We see it in employment. We see it in the investment. It is not as simple as just looking at the ownership percentages of major oil companies.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, earlier we heard our colleague from British Columbia talk about the importance of approaching these types of projects with a degree of responsibility as opposed to the degree of recklessness that we have seen across the aisle.

Can my colleague from Alberta, perhaps in his opinion, identify for us some of those elements that would define responsibility versus recklessness in approaching these types of major projects?

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Madam Speaker, there are a couple of ways to look at that. There is recklessness in how we might approach getting a project built, and there is recklessness in the balance between the environment and the economy. I will speak very briefly to both.

First, it would be reckless to not consult with people. It would be reckless to just say we can will these conditions into fruition. We saw what happened when the Conservative government tried to do that in the past. The Federal Court of Appeal struck down the approval of northern gateway, the phase four approval, because there was just not due care and attention put to it.

Second, on the environmental front, the Prime Minister has been very clear that we can and must grow a strong oil and gas sector, but that has to be tied to strong environmental protections. Those strong environmental protections are not just for the benefit of the planet, although that, to me, is the essential component; our markets will increasingly demand that. We are not going to be selling oil to Europe and Asia if we do not have strong environmental protections.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, the member's industry minister spoke prior to him. She talked about the importance of learning from Trans Mountain, that we have to have a proponent for the pipeline and indigenous buy-in.

Well, here is the thing that causes a total lack of confidence on the Conservative side of the House and among Canadians. It was the current government that forced Kinder Morgan to go south, taking its $4-billion investment with it, because of the tanker ban and the permits that were required. It left, and Trans Mountain became an expense on Canadian tax dollars when there was, actually, the Western Indigenous Pipeline Group, with indigenous international oil and gas experience, that came and tried to pitch to the government that it would take on Trans Mountain. It had the buy-in of all of those along that route.

The political strategy of the Prime Minister was clearly to shut down pipelines until it became an issue where he had no choice but to turn around and appear like he supports oil and gas in Canada.

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is simply not the case. I was a senior official for the Government of Alberta at the time. While I cannot go into confidences, the reality is that nothing there approximates reality.

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

Madam Speaker, let me start off by making very clear, for those who are following the debate, what we are witnessing again today from the official opposition. The starting point has to be that the Conservative Party of Canada, which has moved to the far right with the leader of the Conservative Party, has made the determination that it is better to be an opposition that solely focuses on the best interests of the Conservative Party of Canada, not the best interests of Canadians. This is once again what we are seeing taking place on the floor of the House of Commons.

My colleague and friend just amplified the game being played in a wonderful way so people can really understand it. The reality is, self-interest is the driving motivation of the Conservative Party.

A number of months ago, we had an election. Everyone, no doubt, recalls that. Canadians decided to vote for a Liberal government, headed by a Prime Minister who understands how an economy works. After all, it was Stephen Harper who appointed him as the Governor of the Bank of Canada. He was the governor of the Bank of England. He has an incredible track record in the private sector. He understands what it takes to make the economy work.

The memorandum of understanding that was signed off by the Prime Minister and the Premier of Alberta, I would suggest, is good for the environment, for the economy and for federalism. Once again the Prime Minister has demonstrated that the best way to get things done is by working, where we can, with the many different stakeholders to achieve results that will deliver for Canadians.

Even though he has been Prime Minister for eight months now, there are numerous examples of the Prime Minister being successful at what he committed to do for Canadians. An example would be Bill C-5. Bill C-5, which the Prime Minister and the Liberal government brought in last June and which is now law, talks about the importance of major projects.

Whether it is LNG in B.C., copper going into the prairie provinces, nuclear in Ontario, the port of Montreal in Quebec or, in the second allotment of major projects, things taking place in other regions of the country, these are all initiatives that have been achieved by the federal government and the Prime Minister working with the many different stakeholders, in particular, provinces and indigenous peoples. This is what we have witnessed by the Prime Minister.

Now we bring it to the province of Alberta. All of Canada benefits by it, but I will focus on Alberta. We have a memorandum of understanding that is very clear. Anyone can read the entire memorandum of understanding and, I believe, get a very clear picture. This picture includes consultation in working with indigenous peoples and with the Province of British Columbia. It talks about how it is important to get the private sector engaged on the issue. It enables the potential of a pipeline going from Alberta to the coast on the Pacific Ocean.

The Premier of Alberta is, by the way, a progressive conservative premier, and I highlight the word “conservative”. She and the Prime Minister, in good faith, have signed that memorandum of understanding. I can appreciate that everyone in Canada understands that and values that, in most part, except for the members of the Conservative Party who sit opposite here in the House of Commons.

For them, it was not a good day when the Prime Minister and the Premier of Alberta were onside, even though other premiers in the country are onside with that particular agreement. It is really quite unfortunate. It feeds into what my colleague talked about regarding the motivation of the Conservative Party. I sat in opposition for a part of the years that the leader of the Conservative Party was in government. In fact, the leader of the Conservative Party sat in the government benches for 10 years. Do we know how many miles of pipeline they built from Alberta to tidewater?

It was zero. My colleague from Waterloo is right on. It was zero.

Not one inch of pipeline over the 10 years the leader of the Conservative Party was in government. Why should we believe for a moment that the Conservatives actually know how to get it done? In fact, it took the Trudeau government, through TMX, to build a pipeline to coastal waters.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, now they are complaining that we did it. It is amazing. It really and truly is amazing. Their record is zero, not an inch. Fast-forward to today, when we have a Prime Minister who understands the value of it and who is working and making sure that we can proceed. What does the opposition have to say? I am going to go back to the political games that the Conservative Party plays day after day in the House of Commons.

If Conservatives genuinely were concerned about pipelines, and my colleague was right, they should actually be saying, “Yes, we can do pipelines. It is possible.” They should not be discouraging industry. They are the only political entity that has a chance to govern here in Canada that is saying no to the industry, saying there is no chance of building a pipeline. It is not like it was back in the Harper days. We can actually get things done. That is the bottom line. The Conservatives might have a number of MPs who represent Alberta, but they are a disaster, an absolute, total disaster, in terms of actually moving forward on the pipeline issue.

We can look at what the leader of the Conservative Party did today. Let us imagine this. First he told Canadians he was going to move a motion, which was just going to say to build that pipeline. Who cares about consultation? He then realized he might have misspoken a little. Now he is coming forward and he says he wants to be a little softer on the approach. He says Conservatives like this part of the MOU and that part of the MOU, so they will bring those in and then say, “Now let us challenge the Liberals.”

It is a very clear issue for the Liberal caucus. Every Liberal MP understands what was signed by Danielle Smith and the Prime Minister. It is an MOU that everyone should be getting behind. If one supports the environment, supports building Canada strong or the economy, supports federalism, this is the type of MOU that advances all three of those issues. Only the Conservative Party of Canada would vote against that. We see that. We can look at what the Conservatives brought forward to the House. They cherry-picked, to try to cause more division. They want more division in Canada. They are not that much different from the Bloc at times, it would appear.

If they want Canada to work, they should look at what is in front of their faces and start supporting good ideas. What the premier and the Prime Minister signed is good, in whole. They should get behind it and vote for it.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I sit here amused once again at the absolute arrogance of the Liberals, who think they are the only ones who could have a plan for this country. As a matter of fact, after 10 years of an absolute disaster, they still think their way forward is the best way. When anyone else challenges that vision, Liberals automatically say they are self-interested and only doing it for themselves.

Does the member right there not think that the most self-interested person in the whole government is the current Prime Minister?