House of Commons Hansard #70 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was mou.

Topics

line drawing of robot

This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.

Petitions

Opposition Motion—Pipeline Construction Members debate a Conservative motion supporting a new oil pipeline from Alberta to the British Columbia coast for export to Asian markets, alongside an adjustment to the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act. Conservatives urge the Liberal government to unblock investment and expedite construction. Liberals support the full Canada-Alberta MOU, which includes environmental and Indigenous consultation conditions. The Bloc Québécois and NDP oppose, citing economic non-viability, climate betrayal, and lack of Indigenous consent. 47800 words, 6 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.

Statements by Members

Question Period

The Conservatives criticize the government's obstruction of pipelines to the Pacific, alleging the Prime Minister flip-flopped on his promises. They heavily blame the industrial carbon tax and inflationary spending for skyrocketing grocery prices and increased food bank usage, urging the Prime Minister to cut these taxes and address the $1,000 annual increase families face.
The Liberals defend their MOU with Alberta as a comprehensive plan including industrial carbon pricing and methane regulations to build a strong, sustainable economy. They assert the carbon price doesn't raise food costs, attributing increases to climate change. They highlight investments in affordability, good jobs, child care, dental care, and infrastructure, aiming for the strongest economy in the G7.
The Bloc criticizes the government's environmental rollback with Alberta and questions the PM on religious exemptions. They focus on dangerous Driver Inc. practices, alleging Liberal lobbying and donations compromise road safety.
The NDP questions the government's inconsistent messaging on pipeline consent and its commitment to climate goals and B.C.'s coast.
The Greens question a Bill C-15 section allowing ministerial exemptions from Canadian law without public oversight.

Supplementary Estimates (B), 2025-26 First reading of Bill C-17. The bill grants sums of money to His Majesty for federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2026, and is passed through all stages of the House. 100 words.

Ukrainian Heritage Month Act Second reading of Bill S-210. The bill proposes to designate September as Ukrainian Heritage Month in Canada to recognize the contributions of Ukrainian Canadians to the country's economic, political, cultural, and social life. Members from various parties support the bill, emphasizing the importance of celebrating Ukrainian heritage, especially given the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, and to educate Canadians about Ukrainian culture and history. 7800 words, 1 hour.

Adjournment Debates

Executive bonuses and deficits Mike Lake questions the Liberal government's decision to award bonuses to Via Rail and CMHC executives amid high deficits, citing broken promises. Kevin Lamoureux defends the government, pointing to Canada's high ranking in quality of life and arguing that Conservative governments also awarded bonuses. Lake says his questions were fair, not "potshots."
Prime Minister's offshore tax havens Michael Cooper accuses the Prime Minister of being a hypocrite and a tax dodger for his involvement with Brookfield's use of offshore tax havens. Kevin Lamoureux defends the Prime Minister, arguing that he meets all ethical requirements and that the Conservative Party is engaging in character assassination.
Corporate Profits and Affordability Gord Johns accuses corporations of price gouging, citing record profits for large companies. Kevin Lamoureux defends the government's actions, mentioning tax cuts and initiatives like pharmacare. Johns dismisses Lamoureux's explanations. Lamoureux insists that the government advocates for consumers via measures like Competition Act amendments.
Was this summary helpful and accurate?

Opposition Motion—Pipeline ConstructionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC

Mr. Speaker, one reason we are in such a quagmire as a country is that, for nine years under Justin Trudeau, the Government of Canada ignored every opportunity to build additional resource infrastructure.

In fact, when the German chancellor came to Canada, the Prime Minister said no. The Japanese president came to Canada, and the Liberal government said no. The Dutch government came to Canada. They were all looking for our natural gas and other resources, and the Liberal government said no.

Would the member agree that because of the disastrous energy policies and antiresource policies of the Liberal government, Canada is behind and what is at stake now is our sovereignty?

Opposition Motion—Pipeline ConstructionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

Juanita Nathan Liberal Pickering—Brooklin, ON

Mr. Speaker, we are no longer in Justin Trudeau's government. This is a new government.

We have invested in a very forward-looking budget, and we are in the process of voting on that. I hope the opposition will get on board and support us in building Canada's future. During the last election, we pledged to make Canada an energy superpower and build nation-building projects while protecting our environment. I hope they will get on board.

Opposition Motion—Pipeline ConstructionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Bloc

Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette—Manawan, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very interesting speech. She spoke at length about the importance of working with first nations. She also acknowledged that we are on unceded territory. The Assembly of First Nations is calling on the government to withdraw from its memorandum of understanding with Alberta to build a pipeline. However, the government has said that it will consult with first nations.

Can my colleague confirm that the government is committed to not building the new pipeline if first nations say they do not want it?

Opposition Motion—Pipeline ConstructionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

Juanita Nathan Liberal Pickering—Brooklin, ON

Mr. Speaker, the federal government and Alberta are committed to and will continue engaging in early, consistent and meaningful consultation with indigenous people. We have committed to making sure that they sit at the table as equal partners. We have been extremely clear that this project should only go ahead with sustainable, substantial opportunities for indigenous co-ownership. That is our commitment. This means that the indigenous communities have to agree for this pipeline to go forward, and there is no railroading that.

Opposition Motion—Pipeline ConstructionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated the optimism and hope that the member brought with her words, and I compare this to the Conservatives, who, to this day, say Canada is broken. Perhaps she can reflect on these divergent points of view.

Opposition Motion—Pipeline ConstructionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

Juanita Nathan Liberal Pickering—Brooklin, ON

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the member that Canada is not broken. However, we are in a trade war, and we are trying to forge a path forward.

We are working in collaboration with everyone to move the country forward, to create jobs and to find diverse trade opportunities that benefit all Canadians, not just some Canadians. This memorandum of agreement is a document that elaborates on co-operation with the province, indigenous peoples and private partnership. It is something bigger so that a better future can be forged for our younger generation.

Opposition Motion—Pipeline ConstructionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

Ellis Ross Conservative Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, the member emphasized a lot of clean energy initiatives, but countries like Germany and Britain are now experiencing the highest energy costs around the world. How does the member plan to incorporate clean energy in Canada while keeping life affordable for Canadians in terms of their energy bills?

Opposition Motion—Pipeline ConstructionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

Juanita Nathan Liberal Pickering—Brooklin, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the clean energy question.

We are actually working with partners to build this right now. In my riding of Pickering—Brooklin, we have the biggest nuclear plant. We have invested a lot in nuclear energy—

Opposition Motion—Pipeline ConstructionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

Opposition Motion—Pipeline ConstructionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Vancouver Quadra B.C.

Liberal

Wade Grant LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand before the House today to speak about the monumental agreement signed between the governments of Canada and Alberta.

We know that this country is facing a pivotal, once-in-a-generation moment and that to overcome the challenges of our time, we must bolster and diversify our economy, working hand in hand with provinces, indigenous groups and the private sector to achieve lasting prosperity for all Canadians.

This memorandum of understanding is proof that the federal and provincial governments can work collaboratively to enable and attract natural resource development while protecting the environment and respecting indigenous rights. This agreement includes important commitments that create a path to conditions for investment in western Canada and, at the same time, foster the means to lower greenhouse gas emissions and achieve critical environmental goals.

Canada's progress on climate targets depends on a collaboration across all levels of government. We are strengthening federal-provincial collaboration in the energy sector to achieve our Paris targets and net-zero emissions by 2050.

Canada and Alberta agreed on a new framework to build a stronger, more sustainable, more competitive economy while not backing down on our commitment to lower emissions and protect our environment. In this agreement, Alberta agreed to advance multiple ambitious clean energy projects and measures that will drive down emissions and build a more sustainable economy, including strengthened industrial carbon pricing, carbon capture, enhanced methane regulations, clean electricity regulations and ensuring that Alberta achieves a net-zero electricity grid.

By the looks of the motion before us today, the Conservative Party does not agree. The Conservatives have even had a chance to revise their motion through amendment and still refuse to see how important comprehensive climate action is to this country. What the Conservatives do not understand is that, for Canada to achieve net zero and be competitive at a global scale, we need to drive innovation and climate action across the country.

The agreement specifies how Canada will work with the Province of Alberta on the assessment of all major projects, including clean energy projects. The MOU confirms a shared commitment by Canada and the Province of Alberta to deliver a dependable, cost-effective net-zero electricity grid. It is contingent upon the completion of a new carbon pricing agreement with Alberta, which will be finalized no later than April 1, 2026. We are working with the clean electricity regulations, not around them, in collaboration with the Province of Alberta to get to a net-zero grid. Every province faces unique realities, and we are working closely with Alberta to find an approach that fits its needs.

This MOU also includes concrete commitments to ensure meaningful consultation with indigenous groups that may be affected by the development of major projects, as well as opportunities to advance economic reconciliation through indigenous ownership and partnership, so that all could benefit from this country's resources. In fact, the commitments in the agreement demonstrate that there are real opportunities for federal and provincial governments to work in the spirit of co-operative federalism to overcome challenges and create new opportunities to build a strong and resilient economy for all of Canada.

The one commitment in the memorandum of understanding that I want to speak about specifically is the commitment to sign a co-operation agreement on impact assessment with Alberta by April 1, 2026. It was only a few months ago that the first ministers met and agreed to work toward the effective and efficient implementation of the goal of a single assessment process, or “one project, one review”, that respects our leading environmental standards and indigenous rights for all major projects.

Co-operation agreements under the Impact Assessment Act are a key tool for creating an effective and efficient system that enables us to build nation-building projects faster and responsibly. They allow the federal government to rely on provincial processes in cases where the province confirms that its assessment or regulatory processes will address potential adverse effects within federal jurisdiction. Importantly, co-operation agreements would enable the use of new and full flexibilities in the Impact Assessment Act to defer and work through provincial processes to achieve “one project, one review”.

Co-operation agreements apply when a project is subject to both a federal and a provincial assessment, which could include a project scheduled under the Building Canada Act. “One project, one review” processes may differ depending on the project, its potential impact and the provincial processes that would apply to it.

By working together under a co-operation agreement, we can streamline assessments and provide greater certainty to proponents, while maintaining the flexibility to implement the appropriate approach on a project-by-project basis and ensuring meaningful engagement with indigenous communities. Once it is signed, Alberta will join other provinces that have also committed to “one project, one review”, including New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba and Ontario, with which we are finalizing new co-operation agreements after a public comment period, in keeping with this government's commitment to transparency and engagement with Canadians. I am confident that we will soon have draft agreements ready with other provinces as well.

The commitment to co-operation agreements under the Impact Assessment Act began in 2019, with the first being signed with my home province of British Columbia. This has enabled most projects being assessed by both the federal government and the provincial government under the Impact Assessment Act to undergo a single assessment process. We have further extended this collaboration to improve coordination on permitting for critical minerals projects and continue to have a collaborative and productive partnership with British Columbia.

These agreements will be essential to achieving this government's commitment to streamlining regulatory processes for major projects so they can be completed in two years. Streamlined assessments for major projects do not reduce regulatory requirements, but rather focus the assessments on the most critical issues early in the process, instead of at the end, in order to inform mitigation strategies and decision-making. It would also be up to the federal government to provide guidance to proponents on early and meaningful engagement with indigenous peoples to address areas of concern well before any decisions are made and to explore opportunities for meaningful partnerships.

As stipulated in the agreement with Alberta, the government remains committed to reconciliation with indigenous peoples. I just want to touch on this a bit, because the Constitution has been talked about a lot over the last two weeks. Subsection 35(1) of the Constitution recognizes and affirms aboriginal and treaty rights in this country. I come from the Musqueam Nation on the mouth of the Fraser River, where that section was tested for the first time under the Sparrow decision, which proved that we had the aboriginal right to fish for food, social and ceremonial purposes.

Since then, we have come a long way in reconciliation, not just through jurisprudence, but through the commitment of reconciliation that we must work in collaboration and partnership. It was a sad day, almost 20 years ago, when the former prime minister stood up and apologized about residential schools. The Leader of the Opposition showed how he felt about first nations people by saying that they need to learn the value of hard work. He continues to show his disrespect to aboriginal people by calling them “our” first nations today in this House. I do not belong to anybody.

Indigenous people across this country have a deep connection to their lands, territories and resources, and the way forward is in partnership with them. The partnership of indigenous peoples in the impact assessment process is an essential way to fully understand the impacts of major projects, including impacts on indigenous rights, and to mitigate those effects to the greatest extent possible.

Under co-operation agreements, the federal government will coordinate consultation and collaboration with indigenous peoples through the assessment process. We will strengthen partnerships with indigenous groups by prioritizing early and meaningful consultation and upholding the principles of free, prior and informed consent.

It is important that we recognize that, across Canada, the lands and waters are the traditional territories of first nations, Inuit and Métis people. Indigenous peoples have cared for these environments for millennia, and their knowledge and leadership remain essential. Our journey toward reconciliation continues to be a priority for me, and it is one of the reasons I am standing on this side of the House today.

Standing in the House today to talk about this government's commitment to building one Canadian economy through co-operative federalism and reconciliation has been an honour. This government is pleased to work together with Alberta. I am confident that we will further strengthen our relationship and put in place the conditions necessary to collaborate on all future assessments and a cohesive climate plan.

Opposition Motion—Pipeline ConstructionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

Ellis Ross Conservative Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned his community's involvement in the jurisprudence. My band was involved in the Haida court case in 2004; we intervened.

Eight months of negotiations on the MOU, and there was no involvement with first nations. The table the Liberals have set up is a tripartite table between Alberta, B.C. and the federal government. Again, first nations were excluded. When will the respect for aboriginal rights and title start with the Liberal government?

Opposition Motion—Pipeline ConstructionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

Wade Grant Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC

Mr. Speaker, I have known the member opposite for many years. I know that he has done great work for his community. I know that this government respects aboriginal title and rights in this country. I do know that those conversations are going to be important as we move forward, as we go toward major projects in this country.

The member opposite represents many of those coastal first nations in northwestern British Columbia. Does he go and speak to them about how they want him to vote on the MOU?

Opposition Motion—Pipeline ConstructionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Bloc

Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Liberal government simply wants to do as it pleases. We have a Prime Minister who wants to run the government like a big board of directors.

Here are the facts. The Assembly of First Nations is calling on the federal government to withdraw the MOU that it signed with Alberta for the construction of a new oil pipeline. Other voices within the government, namely two experts and founding members of the Net-Zero Advisory Body, quit because the government is ignoring science and refuses to listen to recommendations from scientific experts. This government does not listen to or consult with first nations, and it does not consult with scientists. It also does not consult with its own adviser, the chief science advisor. I had the opportunity to question her when she came to meet with the Standing Committee on Science and Research. She told me that the current situation, in which the government is creating laws to circumvent all laws except the Criminal Code, is a nightmare.

Do the Liberals still believe in science and climate change, or are they just trying to eat the Conservatives' lunch?

Opposition Motion—Pipeline ConstructionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

Wade Grant Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is no, I did not want to be a Conservative. The long answer is, I do believe in climate change. I do believe in aboriginal title and rights, and I do believe in the respect to come and speak in meaningful consultation. That is what the commitment has been. In fact, today I had the honour of sitting down with coastal first nations to let them know that I will continue to meet with them, and this side of the House will continue to meet with them in person at their convenience, so that we can make sure that they are fully on board to collaborate on any new future project.

Opposition Motion—Pipeline ConstructionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park Ontario

Liberal

Karim Bardeesy LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry

Mr. Speaker, I think we are quite blessed in this House to have, in our parliamentary secretary colleague, someone who has experience in first nations' governance, in provincial government and in federal government now.

I wonder if he could just share the perspectives that he has gained over the years in relation to the motion before us.

Opposition Motion—Pipeline ConstructionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

Wade Grant Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to be here as the first member of my first nation for my home riding of Vancouver Quadra. I have watched over the years as my mother, who was chief, as my grandfather, who was chief, as my uncle, who was chief, have further succeeded in making sure that our interests are always first and foremost.

The government on this side has made great strides in ensuring that we respect aboriginal title and rights. I have sat on the other side of the table, and I have spoken with many people on this side of the table. That is why I am comfortable with being on this side of the table, because, first and foremost, aboriginal title and rights will be respected on this side of the government.

Opposition Motion—Pipeline ConstructionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am troubled that UNDRIP was excluded from reference in Bill C-5, when the government said that laws can be broken to build things faster. I am very troubled that the MOU does not reference UNDRIP to say, in clear language, that we will respect free, prior and informed consent.

Opposition Motion—Pipeline ConstructionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

Wade Grant Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC

Mr. Speaker, that is why, in my speech today, I did indicate that free, prior and informed consent is something that we will seek to achieve with indigenous communities right across the province of British Columbia.

Opposition Motion—Pipeline ConstructionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is always great to speak on behalf of the people of Chilliwack—Hope in the House.

Today we are speaking to a Conservative motion that basically calls on the government to stop speaking out of both sides of its mouth. That is what we have seen over the last number of weeks. This is a government that goes to Alberta to say one thing to Danielle Smith, then comes back to Ottawa, or goes to B.C., or talks to people in other parts of the country, to say something completely different. That is what we have decided to seek clarity on today with our motion. It acknowledges the MOU that was signed by the governments of Canada and Alberta, but it also seek clarity on where the government actually stands, because we are not getting the same message, depending on which member we talk to.

When the Prime Minister was trying to get a standing ovation at the Calgary Chamber of Commerce, he talked about how much he supports pipelines. That is very interesting considering the record of the government he now leads. The Liberal government cancelled the northern gateway pipeline, a pipeline that was approved to go from Alberta to northern B.C. The proponent, Enbridge, spent over a billion dollars working its way through the approval process. It had been approved by the regulator. It had a number of conditions attached to it. It had aboriginal equity partners. I think this is a tragic part of this story that often gets overlooked.

I knew some of the negotiators on that. My father, Chuck Strahl, and the Hon. Jim Prentice, who were both Indigenous Affairs ministers and respected in British Columbia and Alberta, worked with those nations to help them to benefit from the economic development that would have come from the development of the northern gateway pipeline. They had an equity stake in that pipeline worth $2 billion. The Liberal government came in and, with the stroke of a pen, ripped that out of their hands.

At the time, we asked the government if it had consulted with the first nations and the indigenous communities before it stripped away 2 billion dollars' worth of economic development from their communities, and these are often communities that had not had anything close to that sort of economic development for generations. This was an opportunity for them to realize the potential of the hundreds of millions of dollars that was going to be poured into those communities to improve infrastructure, education and the outcomes for the people who live there. It said that it did not have to because it was just cancelling it. Therefore, when the government was taking something away from indigenous communities, when it was ripping money out of their hands for generations to come, it did not even bother to let them know. Now we have the current government pretending to respect indigenous communities through this MOU.

We just heard from the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley about how the government had been working on this for eight months and did not consider talking to first nations leaders, first nations communities or indigenous communities in British Columbia or Alberta. It was a complete afterthought. Now, it retroactively stands up and tries to virtuously tell us how committed it is to section 35 consultations and how respectful it is.

The Minister of Natural Resources went on TV and said that maybe he would have a Zoom meeting with them, dismissively insulting first nations communities and telling them that, if they want to consult with the Liberal government, they should just jump on a Zoom call. This is outrageous disrespect from a government that holds itself pretty high and mighty when it comes to dealing with indigenous communities.

When Justin Trudeau declared that the Great Bear Rainforest was no place for a pipeline, as if it was some sort of magical forest that could not have a pipeline, there were already, I believe, 207 conditions for the building of it. The work had been done. The engineering had been done. The agreements had been reached with the communities along the route.

When Justin Trudeau declared that it was a pipeline that should not be there, Canada sent a message to Justin Trudeau and the Liberals, many of whom are still here, still getting up after every speech to ask questions time after time. It is the same government with a new leader. When the business and investment communities are told that, even though $1 billion was put into a project, and everything was done right, with every t crossed and every i dotted, but the government can just rip away that approval, what happens to investment in that country, a jurisdiction that would allow that? It evaporates. Since that decision by the Liberal government, we have lost hundreds of thousands of jobs and tens of billions of dollars that have gone elsewhere because the Liberal government does not foster an environment where things can get built.

When the Conservatives left office in 2015, there were at least four major pipelines. I am sure I am forgetting some of them. I am sure the Speaker knows the ones that I do not know. There was the energy east pipeline, which was proposed to deliver Canadian oil to the Atlantic provinces. That was, by the way, proposed by a private company, TransCanada Energy. There was the Keystone XL pipeline. Again, it was TransCanada Energy that proposed to send Canadian crude to the gulf coast. There was the northern gateway pipeline, which I have talked about, by Enbridge and the Trans Mountain pipeline by Kinder Morgan. We should notice the common denominator. When Conservatives were in government, private sector investors were prepared to put their own money forward to invest in big projects in this country, billions and billions of dollars.

Just a couple of short years later, those were all gone because of the regulatory environment that the Liberal government put in place. It made it so difficult to build anything and invest in the country that TransCanada abandoned both of their projects, changed its name entirely and moved its operations primarily to the south. It is now TC Energy because TransCanada Energy, after the debacle of the Liberal government, did not sound as attractive to investors as it once had. Enbridge abandoned its project after getting a $1-billion kick between the pockets. Kinder Morgan's project was so risky, after the Liberal government took over and changed all the rules and regulations, that it completely abandoned the project and the government had to buy it. Bill Morneau had to pay taxpayer money to get something that, under the Conservatives, the private sector was willing to do.

We have heard that the Liberals have suddenly seen the light and that they are super in favour of pipelines, but we have the comments from the Prime Minister himself. Apparently, he told the B.C. caucus about the pipeline and said, “If BC doesn’t want it, it’s not going ahead.” The member for Vancouver Granville said that the pipeline must have B.C. and first nations consent and “we will all work to ensure our B.C. coast is protected.” The member for Fleetwood—Port Kells said that the pipeline must have the consent of the Premier of British Columbia. David Eby has apparently been promised a veto by the Prime Minister.

Forgive us if Conservatives do not take these guys very seriously when they talk about how pro-pipeline they are, when every one of their members stands up to talk about how they are going to give consent to the B.C. NDP premier and that, if they do not have consent from David Eby, it is not going ahead. That does not sound like much of a commitment to me.

This motion provides an opportunity for clarity. The Liberals can declare whether the Prime Minister, when he speaks in Alberta, is telling the truth, or when he speaks in Ottawa, is telling the truth. They can declare whether Liberal members of Parliament from B.C. are the ones expressing the views of the government or whether the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources is. It is very clear. It is laid out in the motion, which came, by the way, from the Liberal MOU. The words are drawn straight out of that memorandum of understanding.

Conservatives want to see pipelines built. We want to see Canada prosper, and we want to see people get back to work so that we can all prosper as a nation, build our infrastructure, build our schools, build our education system, build the country that Canadians expect us to build and not have a government that stands in the way of that progress.

Opposition Motion—Pipeline ConstructionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Marc-Aurèle-Fortin Québec

Liberal

Carlos Leitão LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question. Could the member opposite clarify if the Conservative Party is for or against the industrial carbon tax?

Opposition Motion—Pipeline ConstructionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am told by the Liberal government every day in question period that it is an imaginary tax that does not exist. I am very confused.

Of course, we are opposed to the carbon tax. We were the ones who drove the agenda on the consumer carbon tax until the government flip-flopped and agreed it needed to go. This is a government that wants a carbon tax without a pipeline. We want a pipeline without a carbon tax.

Opposition Motion—Pipeline ConstructionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is a great colleague and parliamentarian. He has been around to see those previous efforts by companies to try to get a pipeline done.

I am the representative for Prince George. We saw over 4,000 people and their interests represented in the consultations to do with northern gateway. The project had, like the member said, all the t's crossed and the i's dotted, and the former Liberal prime minister simply cancelled it. The government is accusing us of just playing games with this particular motion.

Are we really serious about getting a pipeline done in B.C.?

Opposition Motion—Pipeline ConstructionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am not convinced the Prime Minister is serious about it. If he wanted it to happen, he would make it very clear to his caucus that it is going to happen. He would shut down this ridiculous idea that the Premier of B.C., the NDP premier, has a veto over this pipeline. He would make it very clear by voting in favour of this motion that he supports a pipeline, just like the Conservatives do.

Opposition Motion—Pipeline ConstructionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Bloc

Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC

Mr. Speaker, what is the world coming to?

The Conservatives are accusing the Liberals of not doing enough to buy a new pipeline. Who was it that bought a new pipeline with our public funds? It was the Liberals; the Conservatives never bought a pipeline. Let us not forget the facts: The Trans Mountain pipeline cost $34 billion, or six to seven times the initial price estimate. In addition, the Parliamentary Budget Officer says that we would lose money if that pipeline were sold tomorrow morning.

The Conservatives, those good stewards of the public purse, are telling us that we need to buy another one, a second pipeline, so that we can lose even more money. They say that it will be good for the economy, that it will make rich oil companies even richer. Can the Conservatives explain to us what good a new pipeline is to Quebeckers?

Opposition Motion—Pipeline ConstructionBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

December 9th, 2025 / 5:10 p.m.

Conservative

Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC

Mr. Speaker, the member is quite correct that the Conservatives did not buy a pipeline. When we were in government, the private sector was lining up to build pipelines in every direction in this country.

It is the Liberals who had such a convoluted bunch of red tape, rules and regulations that it drove private sector investments away. He is quite correct that the Conservatives have never bought a pipeline. We did not have to. The government now says that there is no proponent for this pipeline. Of course there is no proponent for this pipeline. It has driven them all out of the country. It created a business environment that does not allow for certainty. These investments are billions and billions of dollars over decades. When there is a prime minister like Justin Trudeau, who will rip up a signed deal, it sends the message to invest elsewhere.