Debates of Dec. 9th, 2025

Opposition Motion—Pipeline Construction

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the last pipeline infrastructure built in Canada was the Trans Mountain expansion. It cost taxpayers $34 billion.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has said in numerous analyses that this infrastructure is not profitable. It would have to operate at full capacity over the next 40 years just to break even. My Conservative friends like to talk about the Liberals' pipe dream, but I think they have a dream too.

Building infrastructure is not profitable. It is all well and good to tell the government to get out of the way, but private companies will not build it because it is not profitable. I want my colleague to explain the Conservative dream of finding a proponent to build pipeline infrastructure.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Gateway, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the reason it was not profitable was that it was under the Liberal government. The Liberal government created so many regulations, continually moved the goalposts and made it impractical for any private business to make that project profitable, so the government had to step in. What it needed to do was what we are asking it to do: Move out of the way.

Private industry is ready to build major products in Canada, including a pipeline, if the government just gets out of the way. That would be profitable for the government and bring great prosperity to Canadians.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish you a merry Christmas.

The Prime Minister wrote a book called Values, in which he said that 50% of Canadian oil, 50% of natural gas and 75% of coal “need to stay in the ground”. He reiterated those points in interviews prior to the previous election.

I would ask a simple question of the hon. member from Alberta. Does he fully believe that the Prime Minister really wants to build a pipeline to the B.C. coast?

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Gateway, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question from my colleague, because, at the end of the day, that is the problem. It is why so much investment is leaving the country. Billions of dollars of investment have left the country because businesses do not trust the Prime Minister or the Liberal government. They say one thing and do another. They say one thing in Alberta and a completely different thing in British Columbia.

The reality is that in Canada, it is almost impossible to build major projects. The Prime Minister has supported the idea of keeping oil in the ground, so no one believes him today.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Scarborough—Woburn, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I support the MOU. I believe we need to build partnerships in order to move forward on major projects.

With regard to indigenous communities, do you think they should have a say when it comes to the future of pipelines in this country?

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Before I let the hon. member for Edmonton Gateway respond, when members use “you”, the Speaker is not going to respond; the member will respond.

The hon. member for Edmonton Gateway.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Gateway, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear that the member supports the MOU, so, of course, he will support our motion. The wording is from the MOU directly, so I look forward to his support moving forward today.

Of course, we want indigenous communities to be consulted, be a part of this and be a part of the prosperity that this—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

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

Mr. Speaker, the motion on the floor today is:

That the House...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.

This is the Liberals wording, word for word, from the MOU. Having the Liberals oppose and debate their own wording is confusing. This is why we are trying to put this motion on the floor today. Canadians deserve an answer, yes or no.

In B.C., the Liberal Party will tell British Columbians that there will be no pipeline built, but in Alberta, those same Liberals will say that yes, a pipeline will be built. Which is it? This is the first opportunity for the Liberals to tell the truth in their intentions to build Canada strong, to turn us into an energy superpower, to turn us into the best performing country in the G7, but we are watching Liberals argue with Liberals. Liberals are arguing their own climate action plan. In fact, ministers are resigning because they are saying that the Liberals are walking away from their own climate action plan and their commitments to the Paris Accord.

It was not too long ago when the Liberals were condemning everybody who did not support a carbon tax or did not support a climate action plan. Now, Liberals are condemning Liberals for not supporting their own climate action plan. The Conservatives have been trying to help the Liberals turn Canada into an energy superpower. We would not have agreed to using emergency powers like the former prime minister promised. I think that is going too far. Do members remember the emergency powers? They are the ones that allowed convoy truckers to be thrown into jail and have their bank accounts frozen. The courts found it unconstitutional. I could not have agreed to that.

The Liberals claimed that they needed superpowers to get pipelines built, so they brought in Bill C-5, the Building Canada Act, and it got passed by the House of Commons. They knew full well they did not need Bill C-5, as they had all the powers already, but this is typical of what the government has been doing. The Liberals promise, promise, promise, and then they do not deliver when they become government.

The Prime Minister promised to reduce the prices at the grocery store, and his words were that he would be judged by the prices at the grocery store. Then, not one item in the budget actually talked about prices at the grocery store.

I think the real problem we are dealing with here is something that has to be revisited, and it is how this all came about, which is the United States and, specifically, President Trump. We cannot take what President Trump says about Canada literally. President Trump said that Canada should become the 51st state of the United States. We cannot take that literally, but we should be worried about Canada becoming a vassal state. A vassal state is a country with limited sovereignty that is subservient or submissive to a more powerful state, often paying tribute in the form of taxes or resources.

Canada, under the Liberals for the last 10 years, intentionally weakened its own economy by saying no to extracting and exporting its own resources. This would have been okay if the Liberals had replaced the economy with something else, but they did not, and now they are scrambling to fix a problem that they created. Canada should not have been in this weakened state to begin with. With or without Trump, this would have happened. When we take away the strength of a country, we leave ourselves vulnerable to other powerful countries. There are two powerful countries in the world right now: China and the United States.

Let us get back to the pipeline. Canada exports oil to the United States, with 93% of Canadian oil going to the United States. While our brilliant Prime Minister banker says that we have to get off our dependence on the United States, he offers to the United States another pipeline going to the United States.

The Prime Minister offered to build Keystone XL. What is the point of that? President Trump was so happy that our Prime Minister offered to export more oil to the United States, do members know what he did? He imposed more tariffs on Canada.

What is next? As a tribute to the United States, our Prime Minister offered to invest $1 trillion of private Canadian money in the United States. How did Trump respond? He imposed more tariffs. What is the point of negotiating when the situation just keeps getting worse?

The Prime Minister then condoned an ad that was run in the United States, which United States lawmakers refer to as foreign interference. Canada was interfering with the politics of a foreign country, which just happens to be a global superpower. What did Trump do? He imposed more tariffs and increased tariffs.

What is happening now? After the latest meeting with Trump, what did our Prime Minister learn? He learned that Trump is going to threaten tariffs on Canadian fertilizer. That is more exports.

By the way, is potash being shipped out of B.C. ports a reality? No. The company decided to ship out of United States ports instead. That is more tribute to the United States and more private Canadian investment money going to the United States.

Stellantis is an example of more private Canadian money going to the United States. In this case, we could argue that this is public money because the Liberal government gave Stellantis $15 billion. Stellantis then packed up the auto manufacturing facility and moved to the United States. Stellantis then offered $13 billion to President Trump as tribute. The government says that it is going to get that money back, even though it did not read the contract that it signed with Stellantis. I hope it has been read by now.

On top of this, there is CUSMA, the trade agreement between the United States, Canada and Mexico. President Trump is threatening to withdraw from that agreement. The argument is that the default will be the previous agreement that existed before CUSMA. That is a weak premise, given who we are dealing with south of the border. Do we really think that Trump is going to agree to that?

In this new world of geo-economics, Canada is now in a weakened position, with no leverage to negotiate with the United States, much less anybody else. Liberals are now starting to beg Europe for some type of alliance. There are the fighter jets that they are talking about buying. Instead of buying jets from the Americans, as promised, they want to buy from Sweden, but the licensing technology belongs to the United States.

With all of the insults that the Prime Minister has given across the board, saying that pipelines are “boring” and responding, “Who cares?” when asked if he had talked to the President of the United States, do we really think that the United States is going to allow licensing to leave any of the manufacturers all around the world?

This is a different world we are living in. In Canada, we are 10 years behind the times because of failed Liberal policies. The vassal state is a reality. If it continues on the road it is going down, our grandchildren and children are going to have to not only deal with failed economics but also deal with the politics that are playing out, right now, here in Canada.

We have not even begun to talk about the Arctic and Arctic sovereignty. How are we going to fund that when we have no economy? Right now, the Liberal answer to this is to go back to taxes or hide it through rates.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I think we diverge on a very significant point above all others, which is that, over here, we believe in the future of Canada and in our ability to create our own future, to make our own decisions and to choose our own destiny. Part of choosing that destiny is the negotiations with members and the constituent parts of our vast and great land, which includes, of course, the province of Alberta and the province of British Columbia, as well as all provinces, which have rights holders and first nations as well.

Would my hon. friend prefer to have an MOU and everything that is contained in that MOU, including great advances on the environment, or would he prefer to just have one part of that MOU, which is what his party is advocating for?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is 10 years too late to believe in Canada. Why did you not believe that 10 years ago, when you started all these policies? There was Bill C-69, the tanker moratorium. Why did you not believe it then?

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I will just interrupt the member as his comments should be going through the Chair, not directly to the government House leader. The member is using the word “you”, which refers to the Speaker, so he cannot use it.

The member may continue.

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

Mr. Speaker, to the government House leader, we are not arguing. We are watching the Liberals argue over this MOU. We are watching them argue over the climate action plan. We are trying to be supportive.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, aside from the fact that the government has obviously completely abandoned the fight against climate change, the big question that we will have to ask ourselves today is this: Is there really a proponent that is interested in building a pipeline?

There do not seem to be very many people lining up to do that. The Liberals and the Conservatives are going back and forth about who has the longest pipeline, but no one is interested. There is no commercial interest in building a pipeline. Not a single proponent is interested.

My Conservative friends will have to be clear about whether they are willing to put public money into this type of infrastructure. We lost $34 billion in the past. We need to know whether the Conservatives are willing to put public money into this.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a Liberal MOU. This is a Liberal decision. This MOU never came to the House.

By the way, on the idea of a private investor, there is no way a private investor would invest in Canada when we have the tanker moratorium and Bill C-69, the environmental laws. It is just too much. Today, it can be a signal. There has got to be 10 to 20, maybe 30, signals that have to be sent, on top of legislative amendments to be made to all the policies. They have restricted investment in the first place.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Gateway, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I send congratulations to my hon. colleague and friend for a great speech. I agree with him that the Liberals are always creating confusion. In fact, the Liberals, especially the Prime Minister, always speak out of both sides of their mouths. To the “leave it in the ground” caucus, they say no pipelines, but to Alberta, they say that they will build a pipeline. The Prime Minister supports the tanker ban, but then he says he may somehow override it for a pipeline.

Can the member talk a bit more about how the Prime Minister says one thing to one group of people and another thing to others to create confusion and division?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly why we want to talk about this today. What we are talking about today is not definitive. This is just the Liberals' wording in the MOU, but it will be definitive once the application is made. At that point, the Liberal government will have to make a decision. Will it allow a pipeline to be built? Will it allow it to be fast-tracked? Will it go to the Major Projects Office?

Today is all about yes or no to different provinces, depending on which audience is sitting in front of the Prime Minister.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

We have time for a very short question.

The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was in the House when the Prime Minister said that this pipeline would require the consent of the Government of British Columbia, as well as first nations. I then, of course, read the MOU, and it says no such thing. I think the energy minister went to British Columbia and then said that it would require free, prior and informed consent of indigenous nations.

What is the position of the Conservative Party? Do the Conservatives believe—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I did say it had to be a short question.

The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley can respond, in 15 seconds or less.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is basically the whole problem. We do not know what the government's position is, whether we are talking about indigenous consent or provincial consent. We do not know. Today will be a huge day for—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to interrupt the member.

Resuming debate, the hon. Minister of Energy and Natural Resources.

[Tim Hodgson, Liberal, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. Minister of the Environment.

I appreciate the opportunity to take part in this debate. I want to begin by acknowledging the people who have the most at stake in this discussion, Canada's first nations, Métis and Inuit people and their rights, which our government has committed to uphold consistently, including in the MOU referenced in this motion.

I would also like to thank the workers and communities who power Canada's energy sector, the governments and citizens of Alberta as well as British Columbia.

Canada is in a trade war, one we did not ask for but one we must win. In a moment like this, we need unity and execution. We need to focus on building real things that will stand the test of time, not Conservative partisan theatre intended for social media clips. Canadians expect more from the House, and we will deliver it for Canadians. That is why the government supports the full memorandum of understanding signed between Canada and the Conservative Government of Alberta. I say the full text of the MOU, because the whole agreement matters. The accomplishment of the full text is that it sets out the conditions needed to make the progress Canada and Alberta agree on. It is a framework and a path for prosperity, nation building and reduced emissions, things Canadians elected us to deliver.

This Conservative motion before us does the opposite. It cherry-picks one outcome and ignores the framework that would make that outcome possible. In an attempt to score cheap political points, the motion is dripping with cynicism. Endorsing that approach does not bring a pipeline closer. In fact, by ignoring the importance of engagement with British Columbia, the possibility of indigenous co-ownership, the role of the private sector and the crucial decarbonization efforts inherent in a possible pipeline, such as the Pathways project and a strong carbon market, it risks pushing it farther away.

Not only does it not reflect the deal that was actually signed. It also does not represent the full plan Alberta has laid out. Perhaps that is no surprise, since the leader of the official opposition has never made a deal in his life. He only parachuted into Alberta this year. Does he understand what Albertans want?

Let me be clear about this. I support the idea that Canada should diversify its trade and expand access to global markets. I support the idea that a pipeline could be a key part of this, if built right. Just look at what the TMX did for our economy in the first year alone. However, that is not the same as supporting a motion that is designed to only play divisive games rather than build consensus.

I appreciate the Conservatives are taking some inspiration from the deal we negotiated with Alberta, which includes diversifying exports beyond a single customer, increasing resilience to market shocks and supporting good jobs and investment in Canada. I suggest they read the entire MOU a bit more closely.

Unfortunately, what they left out of today's motion is what would make a real project possible. They omitted that any pipeline must be constructed and financed by the private sector. They omitted a joint commitment by Canada and Alberta to strengthen the industrial carbon price through Alberta's tier system, including a minimum effective credit price of $130 per tonne. They omitted that a phase one Pathways project must be approved and under way before a pipeline proceeds. They omitted the requirement to engage British Columbians through friendly dialogue. They omitted that any adjustment to the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act would only be considered if necessary. Those are not footnotes; they are conditions for success.

They are also the part of the memorandum that actually answers Canadians' practical questions: Who pays for the project? How do we earn public trust and social licence? How do we reduce emissions in a way that attracts investment and protects our planet? How do we work with British Columbia and indigenous partners on an approach that supports team Canada rather than divides us?

The Prime Minister and the government know what it takes to build nation-building projects, and so do our provincial partners, whether they are in Alberta, British Columbia or beyond. If they do not want to collaborate with us, perhaps my Conservative colleagues across the aisle should take cues from them. Therefore, the government will not support this motion. We must vote against it because it is incomplete by design and undermines the practical pathway set out in the memorandum that Canada and Alberta have agreed to.

If Conservatives actually want a pipeline built, I would suggest there are three realities they need to accept. First, on the role of industrial carbon pricing, I will continue to challenge Conservatives to make clear whether they agree with Premier Smith that industrial carbon pricing is an essential part of diversifying Canada's energy exports beyond the United States. The Leader of the Opposition has spent years attacking industrial carbon pricing and undermining certainty for investments. Premier Smith is signing an agreement that strengthens industrial carbon pricing. Canadians deserve to know which side Conservatives are on. It does not appear to be the side of Canadians.

The second reality that Conservatives must accept is that the endeavour upon which we are embarking must be legitimate. In Canada, legitimacy starts with respecting the rights of indigenous peoples and the duty to consult. This is not a box to check at the end. It is a responsibility that begins at the beginning of the process. It is about economic partnership. Many indigenous communities want to be owners and investors in major projects, not spectators. In fact, we have already heard from treaty nations interested in possible co-ownership, a desire completely left out of the Conservative motion. Legitimacy also means working with British Columbia in good faith. It requires serious engagement with the province, coastal communities and indigenous peoples whose lands and waters would be affected. The MOU we signed recognizes that reality. The Conservative motion tries to skip it.

The third reality is that we must accept that there are lessons we should take note of from the Trans Mountain expansion. The TMX is an essential piece of infrastructure that fundamentally changed Canada's ability to be a resilient energy superpower. Unfortunately, Conservatives often try to exclude it from conversations because it does not fit their political narrative. That is because Liberals can and did actually build pipelines. One very important thing we can learn from the TMX is the importance of having a private proponent. There is significant work needed to be done with Alberta to attract that proponent, and that work is being done. We will not let the federal Conservatives pretend that an opposition day motion can substitute for a real project proposal, real financing and a real review.

I also want to address the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act because Conservatives have cherry-picked this measure for this debate. Our approach to this is straightforward. The memorandum makes clear that an adjustment to the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act will only be considered if necessary and only in the context of an approved project. In other words, we are not going to turn the moratorium into a political football for the sake of a cynical headline. We will develop an appropriate adjustment, if required, based on evidence and a real proposal, not a desire to be on television.

At its core, this Conservative motion is not about building; it is about dividing. It tries to pit regions against each other while ignoring the collaborative nature of the very agreement that Canada and Alberta signed to create a path forward. We are in a trade war, and Canada needs a team Canada approach. That means—

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

I have to interrupt the hon. minister. We are past time.

The hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong.

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

Madam Speaker, the northern gateway pipeline had all of the environmental assessments and had all of the indigenous consultation, and it was cancelled under Justin Trudeau. The government asked Conservatives to support Bill C-5 so that it could exempt projects in the national interest from all the terrible laws that it passed in the last 10 years, and we did support that. Now, the minister has a pipeline that meets all of the criteria he has been talking about in his speech.

Does he want to build the pipeline, yes or no?