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.