Debates of Dec. 9th, 2025

Relevance of Answers During Oral Questions—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on December 4 by the member for Saint‑Jean concerning the relevance of answers during oral questions.

In her point of order, the member for Saint‑Jean argued that some recent answers from the government were not only off topic but completely unrelated to the business of Parliament. She asked the Chair to clarify whether, like questions, the answers given during question period must also pertain to the business of the House.

The member for Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière raised a related point about the questions from the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, during a previous sitting, that the Chair had interrupted before he could finish asking them.

I will address these two points in turn.

Regarding the answers provided by the government, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, states, in section 11.12:

The Speaker ensures that replies adhere to the standards of order, decorum and parliamentary language, but is not responsible for the quality or content of replies to questions.

It is not, and has never been, up to the Chair to determine whether an answer is appropriate. Multiple rulings by my predecessors have underscored the Chair's limited authority over the content of answers. In a decision delivered by one of them, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, on January 28, 2014, which appears on page 2204 of the Debates, he said the following:

Successive Speakers in our House have maintained our tradition of not intervening in respect of answers to questions, and I do not intend to change that.

With respect to the slightly different concern raised by the member for Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière about questions, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, in section 11.7, states clearly that questions should be “within the administrative responsibility of the government or of the individual minister addressed.”

It follows that the Chair then has a role to play in assessing the admissibility of questions. My immediate predecessor made clear what the Chair's expectations are when a member rose to ask a question. On December 10, 2024, at page 28755 of the debates, he stated:

If members want to ensure their questions are in order and to get an answer from the government, they need to phrase them clearly and to quickly make a direct connection to the government’s administrative responsibility.

This is advice that I also endorse without reservation. When such a connection is not made, members risk being interrupted by the Chair.

More generally, until the House changes its practices regarding the admissibility of both questions and answers during oral questions, the powers of the Chair to address their content will remain unchanged.

That being said, the Chair understands some of the dissatisfaction expressed by the member for Saint-Jean. The Chair is in full agreement with an assertion made by my predecessor from Regina—Qu'Appelle in the decision referenced earlier:

The onus is on all Members to raise the quality of both questions and answers.

The Chair hopes that this sensible reminder will continue to guide members on both sides of the House in the days ahead.

I thank all members for their attention.

The House resumed consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.

Opposition Motion—Pipeline Construction

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, for generations, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake and its oil industry offered a beacon of hope to countless people from across Canada and around the world to work hard and make a great life. My family has called Fort McMurray home for over 50 years. My dad and grandparents moved up to Fort McMurray in the 1970s in search of a better life. They worked hard to provide opportunities for their family and give back to their community.

Fort McMurray Wood Buffalo is home to the third-largest proven oil deposit in the world, and 97% of Canada's oil comes from the oil sands. Ninety-six per cent of Canada's oil sands oil comes from the Fort McMurray region. Canada's oil sands production averages 3.1 million barrels a day.

I am proud to stand here representing Canadian oil sands workers in Parliament. Many years ago, like my dad and my grandfather before me, I laced up steel-toed boots and reported to work in health and safety in the oil sands. I understand how hard the people who work in Canada's energy sector work. They work long hours and rotating shifts in harsh weather conditions, yet thousands of workers show up every single day to ensure that our houses stay warm in the winter and cool in the summer, and that the lights are always on when we need them.

Canada's energy sector currently employs nearly a million people, providing strong paycheques and life-changing opportunities for families and communities nationwide, and the oil and gas industry is among the largest employers of indigenous people in Canada. As I fly back and forth to Ottawa, I meet oil sands workers coming from every corner of the country.

In 2022, oil and gas contributed $45 billion in revenue to Canadian governments, funding schools, hospitals, roads and other important public infrastructure, yet after 10 years of Liberal governments, Canada's economy is struggling. Eco-radicals sit around the cabinet table and advocate against Canada's world-class energy sector at every opportunity. The Liberal “leave it in the ground” caucus is alive and well, and it has made no attempt to hide its hatred for Canadian oil and gas.

I wish this MOU was a promise for a pipeline. Our country could really benefit from that kind of certainty and hope. The Prime Minister promised to build now and move at unimaginable speeds, yet, eight months in, Canadians have nothing but paper shuffling, press conferences and photo ops.

The anti-energy agenda from the Liberals has been consistent and punishing over the last decade: anti-energy messaging, delays, arbitrary and inconsistent regulatory conditions and an outright veto of an approved export pipeline. The Liberal “keep it in the ground” caucus knows more oil will not be produced if it cannot get to market, which is precisely why it is so obstinately against any kind of existing pipeline expansions.

With all the debates happening around pipelines, one might think they were new, yet they have existed since before Canadian Confederation. Canada's first natural gas pipeline was built in Enniskillen Township near Sarnia, Ontario in 1853. That is 172 years ago. In 1862, the first oil pipeline was built from Petrolia to Sarnia in Ontario. It was in 1947 with Leduc No. 1 and 1948 with the Redwater discovery that pipeline construction really started to accelerate in Canada. Alberta's oil was soon connected to markets.

Oil sands, which is a mixture of bitumen, clay, sand and water, was developed by Dr. Karl Clark as a hot water separation process that then paved the way for large-scale development in the Fort McMurray region. The first major commercial operation was the Great Canadian Oil Sands, now Suncor, which opened in 1967.

Just as in the earliest days of oil development, pipelines were the solution to get oil and gas from source to market. There are more than 840,000 kilometres of pipelines that criss-cross the country. This is a direct quote from Natural Resources Canada's website: “Pipelines are a safe, reliable and environmentally friendly way of transporting oil and gas.” It goes on to say, “On average each year, 99.999 percent of the oil transported on federally regulated pipelines moves safely.”

Canadians should be the world's energy producer and supplier of choice. Our economy should be self-reliant. We should have energy sovereignty and energy independence, yet Liberals time and time again put ideology ahead of supporting our economy. Liberal MPs do not mince their words when speaking about their hatred of pipelines. The MP for Victoria said, “I have heard from my constituents on this today and for several months. They, like me, are decisively not in support.” Then there is the MP for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, who quit cabinet over the MOU and said, “I sincerely doubt that the new pipeline will ever get built.” The MP for Fleetwood—Port Kells said they must have the consent of the Premier of British Columbia, and if not, “there will be no pipeline”.

The B.C. NDP Premier, from whom the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells wants to have consent, has said, “it will never be built” and “I am not in favour of shipping raw bitumen through our coast by lifting the oil tanker ban”.

Liberals now claim to value Canadian oil and gas and say they want to increase exports, but after a decade in office, their track record is interfering to kill four pipelines, two of which were specifically designed to export off the west and east coasts. Now they have dangled the promise of a pipeline, maybe, one day.

The Prime Minister needs to do only one thing to get a pipeline approved: Get out of the way. Unblock trillions of dollars of private sector money and investments to build pipelines and energy infrastructure in Canada. By getting governments out of the way, we will boost the Canadian economy, create more good-paying jobs and strengthen the Canadian dollar, which will in turn make gas, groceries and homes more affordable and our economy self-reliant, secure and sovereign.

As described earlier, to so many Canadians, Fort McMurray represented a beacon of hope and prosperity and an opportunity for a fresh start. To the world's leading oil producers, Fort McMurray is a tough competitor that refuses to lie down, but for far too many politicians in this chamber, it is simply a cash cow, and to the fringe eco-activists, it is the enemy.

To me, Fort McMurray has and will always be home. I was born and raised there, and Conservatives of every stripe have always had our back. They understand that when Fort McMurray works, Alberta works, and when Alberta works, Canada works. I will not back down from the politicians in this chamber who seek to landlock and firewall the oil sands. Pipelines and energy corridors are of critical interest and importance for the long-term viability of the Canadian economy.

Hope is on the horizon, though. Conservatives are going to do what we have consistently done for decades: Support Canadian oil and gas, its workers and the Canadian economy. Unlike Liberals, Conservatives are united, and we sure do not have a “keep it in the ground” caucus. We are consistent in our position, and we will say the same thing whether we are in British Columbia, Alberta, Newfoundland or Nunavut, or anywhere in between.

Conservatives will keep fighting to boost Canadian paycheques; make energy, food and homes affordable; and make our economy self-reliant, secure and sovereign. Frankly, it is about time, and we have the energy.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think there is a lot of enthusiasm in the House for things to be done right.

I want to ask the member if she is going to support the government's MOU.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is really challenging. We pulled the words for this motion directly from the Liberals' MOU. We did not mince words or do something, play politics or change anything up. The fact that the Liberals and the “keep it in the ground” caucus have somehow convinced the government to vote against this is shameful.

I hope the Liberals do the right thing, support our motion and show Canadian energy workers that they have their backs, but I highly doubt they will.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my hon. colleague to elaborate on the benefits of getting more Canadian liquefied natural gas and oil to foreign markets, not only to help combat climate change but also to give economic benefits to Canadians by growing our economy and getting these natural resources to market.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there would be a lot of benefits if we were able to get our energy to market. We would be able to displace dirty dictator oil from regimes like Russia and help put an end to the war in Ukraine, and we could help displace coal. We are in the position we are in because the Liberals, for the last decade, have said that there is no business case every time governments have come asking us to develop our LNG in different markets.

We cannot even provide all of the energy to our own country. We cannot get our energy from the west coast to the east coast because this Liberal government, for the last 10 years, has stood in the way at every single opportunity.

Conservatives will be consistent, just like we have been for decades. We will support Canadian energy workers and Canadian energy.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today is all about the Conservative fantasy: pipelines and “drill, baby, drill”. We need to refocus the debate on the facts. The federal Liberal government bought a pipeline called Trans Mountain. In 2017, it was supposed to cost about $7.4 billion. How much did it actually cost? It cost taxpayers $34 billion, which is six to seven times more than the project was supposed to cost. The Parliamentary Budget Officer told us that, if the government were to sell it tomorrow morning, it would lose money. Now the Conservatives are telling us that we need another pipeline. Do they enjoy losing Quebeckers' and Canadians' money? Is that what the Conservatives are telling us? Would a new pipeline serve a market in Asia? No, there is no such market. They do not want to say that in their speeches.

Where are those good Conservative stewards of the public purse now? A pipeline is not profitable, okay? It will not put money in Quebeckers' pockets.

I invite my colleague to answer this simple question. The other day, I asked a Conservative colleague if the money for this would be public or private. He told me that no public money would be invested. Why are they now saying the opposite?

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Before I recognize the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, I would like to remind members that normally, during questions and comments, only one member should rise at a time. Sometimes, depending on where the member is in the chamber, they may appear on camera. I would therefore remind members that they must rise one at a time and that members may attempt to get the Chair's attention when it is time to ask or answer a question.

The hon. member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are calling on the government to facilitate private investment in Canada's energy sector. It has become extremely difficult for companies to invest here, and that means the industry has been dependent on the government for the past decade. Today, oil companies want to invest, but they are hesitant because of delays and the anti-energy policies put in place by the Liberals.

We need to diversify our approaches and build pipelines to access foreign markets. Several countries are clamouring for our natural gas, our liquefied natural gas, or LNG, and our oil. These markets exist, and we need to do more to ensure that pipelines can be built here with private funding.

[Claude Guay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Humber River—Black Creek.

Throughout Canada, from the far north to our urban centres and smaller communities, Canadians expect their government to show true leadership in dealing with the greatest challenge of our time, and that is climate change.

Our path to prosperity, our vision for energy, the economy and security, cannot and must not come at the expense of our planet, our children, or our duty to act with courage and conviction to reach net zero. That is why the memorandum of understanding recently signed between Canada and Alberta is so important. It is proof of our commitment to building Canada while reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.

Canada must provide the energy the world needs with environmental rigour and by advancing unwaveringly towards a prosperous and sustainable economy. While Canada and Alberta work together in a renewed spirit of collaboration, as evidenced by the MOU, we are creating the conditions for projects that will strengthen our economy while fighting climate change. Together, we are moving forward on the Pathways Plus project, the largest carbon capture and storage initiative in the world. The Pathways Plus project will help cut emissions in our conventional energy sector to make it more competitive globally while generating significant economic benefits, including investments of more than $16 billion and the creation of more than 18,000 jobs.

That is what happens when we collaborate: We have the opportunity to shape a future where Canada's energy leadership and its climate ambitions move forward together. As long as the world is using oil and gas, we must ensure that the oil that Canada provides is produced with the lowest carbon emissions possible. Technologies such as carbon capture and storage will help Canada produce some of the lowest-emitting oil and gas in the world. These initiatives will strengthen Canada's industrial and climate competitiveness, support the development of Canadian clean technologies, and move us closer to our goal of becoming a clean and conventional energy superpower while achieving net zero.

Furthermore, our industrial carbon pricing system is pushing industries to adopt clean technologies and develop clean energy. The MOU signed with Alberta is clear: Alberta's industrial carbon price has to increase from $25 to at least $130. According to a report by Clean Prosperity, a minimum price of $130 in Alberta could reduce carbon emissions by 70 megatonnes a year and unlock more than $90 billion in clean tech and energy investments.

Consistent industrial carbon pricing guarantees a sustainable and predictable financial incentive for reducing emissions, investing in clean tech and decarbonizing supply chains. Industrial carbon pricing deserves credit for the largest emissions reduction in our climate plan. The MOU with Alberta is strengthening industrial carbon pricing while building a national consensus in support of it. It is one example of how co-operation and technological innovation can work together to achieve real progress. The MOU clearly states that growth in the conventional energy sector will have to include some of the largest, measurable reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in the world, along with concrete measures for fighting climate change.

These are the facts: The MOU reaffirms the commitments made by Canada and Alberta to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. That is a section that was left out of the Conservative Party's motion. This is not just a dream. This commitment is based on measures to reduce emissions from oil production through Pathways Plus, a carbon capture and storage project, as well as through robust industrial carbon pricing and through methane emissions reductions.

Indeed, the MOU sets the path for Alberta and Canada to reduce methane emissions. It aims for a 75% reduction in methane emissions from the sector by 2035 compared with 2014 levels. In short, resource development and climate leadership will advance together, ensuring that growth is directly linked to real, verified greenhouse gas emission reductions. These are not generic targets. The MOU sets a goal for Canadian heavy oil to achieve excellence in carbon emissions reduction and reach net-zero emissions by 2050. To achieve these results, the MOU links progress to key investments in transformative technologies.

The MOU supports and promotes rapid growth in the clean energy sectors. By integrating new interconnections between provinces and promoting the expansion of renewable energy production in western Canada, the MOU enables system-wide decarbonization. This is not just about reducing emissions from oil production, but also about building a clean electricity grid.

We cannot call on other countries to cut their emissions while failing to demonstrate that prosperity can go hand in hand with the fight against climate change. Our world-class record in terms of emissions, the rights of indigenous peoples and consultation is precisely what makes Canada an attractive energy supplier for our allies that care about reliability, security and environmental progress. By setting ambitious greenhouse gas emission targets in all sectors, investing in low-carbon technologies and encouraging innovation through a predictable and robust industrial carbon pricing system, Canada sends a clear signal to investors and its trade partners that Canada will influence global trends in the fight against climate change.

There is no trade-off between prosperity and the fight against climate change. There is only leadership and collaboration. The government's goal is to work with provinces, territories and indigenous people to build Canada. A collaborative approach is the very foundation of our Confederation. One of the next steps in the implementation of the agreement will consist in engaging in immediate trilateral discussion with British Columbia and Alberta. Some constructive conversations with British Columbia have already taken place.

Indigenous rights must also be respected by engaging in meaningful consultation and encouraging participation and partnership with indigenous peoples. We have made it clear that shared ownership with indigenous communities is an essential requirement for any prospective pipeline project. That is one more thing that was left out of the Conservative motion.

Canada stands ready to lead with bold action, striking a balance between growth and responsible stewardship and showing the world that prosperity uplifts people and the planet. We are ready to lead by example and to build.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Mr. Speaker, about a year ago Alberta Central reported that with the opening of the TMX expansion, bringing more oil to global markets, the selling price of a barrel of Canadian crude went up by $8. This is not just the new barrels but all barrels. This is because, with the pipeline, we had more access to global markets and could bid up our price.

Would the member agree that pipelines are good for Canada's economy?

[Claude Guay, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I totally agree, and the MOU is actually to diversify our market. We totally intend to work with Alberta to give access to the Asian market. It actually is stated in the MOU. I regret to inform the member that the motion put forward does not include that portion of the MOU. We totally agree about the market, but we would like all the pieces of the MOU to be included in the motion.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what is the world coming to? Now we are wondering whether the Liberals still believe in climate change. From what they are saying, it seems as though they have spent too much time with the Conservatives, or perhaps the Conservatives have spent too much time with the Liberals. Either way, red or blue, it amounts to more or less the same thing. They all want more pipelines.

I would like my colleague to explain something to me. As we know, in his previous life, the Prime Minister worked for Brookfield with his friends who have ties to pipelines, but he was also the United Nations special envoy on climate action and finance. At the time, he said that we needed to keep fossil fuels in the ground.

Now that he is Prime Minister of Canada, he is telling us that we need a new pipeline, that we need to diversify our economy and that we need to placate the separatists in Alberta and not stir them up too much, because that could lead to Quebec becoming independent. What he is telling us today is pure hypocrisy through and through. First the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie resigned as minister, and now they are telling us lies.

What is the real story? Do the Liberals believe in climate change or not?

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

One of the last words used by the member is not usually allowed in the House, so members must be careful how they use it, even if it is not directed at one member in particular.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources.

[Claude Guay, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what my hon. colleague was doing during my 10-minute speech in which I talked about climate change and all the measures we included in the framework agreement we signed with Alberta. We are very proud to have persuaded Alberta to agree to diversify our conventional and clean energy sources by signing this agreement, which includes many climate change measures and related language.

My response to my hon. colleague is that, yes, we believe in climate change, and we will continue to address it while building a strong Canada.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech.

I have a question for him. A Conservative member said in the House earlier that we are 10 years behind the times when it comes to believing in Canada.

Could my colleague comment on the fact that the Conservatives no longer have confidence in Canada and that they spend all their time here in the House, as elected officials, speaking out against Canada? They have a truly anti-Canadian attitude.

What does my colleague have to say to the Quebeckers who elected him to this place?

[Claude Guay, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to call attention to the last motion moved by our Conservative colleagues. This motion seeks to divide Canada.

Conservative representatives from different provinces across the country support the framework agreement. We have persuaded a province that had been relatively reluctant until now to participate in our decarbonization measures and to embrace a series of federal government measures, and we should be very proud of that.

I find it unfortunate that our Conservative friends chose to include only one aspect of the framework agreement in a motion that says nothing about climate change.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always good to see you in the Chair, keeping control of all of the comments that are made here in the House.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to the issue of the recently signed Canada-Alberta memorandum of understanding and the duty to consult with indigenous peoples on its implementation.

Let me begin by saying that Canada and Alberta are committed to respecting aboriginal and treaty rights. We have heard it from the minister and we have heard from the Prime Minister continually about engaging in early, consistent and meaningful consultation with indigenous peoples. This will have to be done in a manner that promotes reconciliation and respects the rights and cultures of indigenous peoples while advancing economic opportunities through indigenous ownership and partnership.

The Building Canada Act makes sure that first nations, Inuit and Métis people participate in full partnership in building a strong, fairer economy. It is intentional that section 35 rights are embedded in the legislation, with a requirement to engage in consultation with affected section 35 rights holders at key stages: first, before a project is designated as being in the national interest; second, before the issuance of the conditions document; and, third, before any amendment to the conditions document.

I am going to repeat those three conditions. They are before a project is designated, before the issuance of the conditions document and before any amendment to the conditions document. All of that will have to happen before any progress will be made.

Free, prior and informed consent will also be a central tenet guiding the federal government's approach to implementing the Building Canada Act. Major projects will only proceed following meaningful consultation and, where appropriate, accommodation. This past summer, the government convened three distinctions-based meetings with first nations, Inuit and Métis leaders to discuss the Building Canada Act and how best to work together. There were frank exchanges, and first nations, Inuit and Métis representatives from across Canada had the opportunity to comment and to share their views.

Further, as promised by the Prime Minister, collaboration has continued with first nations leadership at all levels through regional dialogue tables. These meetings are helping shape the path forward together to advance major projects, including projects of national interest. The Major Projects Office is the single point of contact, as well as the leadership, on major projects, partnering with federal departments, provinces, territories, indigenous peoples and the private sector. Its mandate is to advance nation-building projects that connect Canada's economy, diversify trade and industries, create good jobs, protect the environment and uphold indigenous rights.

By streamlining approvals and committing to a two-year timeline for major project decisions, the Government of Canada is creating a more efficient and predictable environment to give investors and project proponents, such as Iqaluit hydro, the certainty they need. What I have heard from all of the members on the other side today are ways to move things along faster when they have the right conditions.

Advancing the interests of indigenous peoples is a vital part of advancing major projects and one of the factors considered in the designation of projects to be in the national interest. I wish to underline that meaningful consultation is key to the success of all future major projects. I do not think anyone on this side of the House is prepared or would be prepared to ram something through, which is what I am hearing on the other side of the House.

That is why Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada has been engaging with indigenous partners to improve how federal consultation happens, including during major project processes and Crown consultation coordination, and to better understand indigenous priorities for economic prosperity. We will work with the new federal Major Projects Office and other federal departments to share what we have heard about indigenous interests and economic priorities, including community-supported major projects, consultation expertise and how best to strengthen those partnerships.

This includes updating the federal guidelines on consultation, using consultation protocol agreements and resource centres to help guide and inform these processes, continuing to include consultation provisions in new modern treaty and self-government arrangements and reviewing consultation provisions in existing modern treaty and self-government arrangements to ensure they reflect the latest legal and policy developments.

The Major Projects Office's work also benefits from the leadership and guidance of an indigenous advisory council, which provides expert advice on policy, operational practices and process improvements related to the inclusion of indigenous perspectives and interests in major projects. The council will also support the Major Projects Office by championing indigenous partnerships and economic participation in all major projects in Canada. Consultation continues to be a prerequisite.

The focus of the council will be to provide insightful counsel on policies and processes related to major projects. It will provide expert advice on policy, operational practices and process improvements related to the inclusion of indigenous perspectives on, and interest in, major projects and regulatory processes, including the integration of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act principles. Doing so is reconciliation in action.

Members of the council were selected based on their expertise and knowledge of major projects, economic development, indigenous rights and of course the regulatory space. Members bring diverse perspectives and demonstrated leadership. Some of the members were also nominated by indigenous governments and organizations. The council will also shape how the Major Projects Office works with first nations, Inuit and Métis, as well as modern treaty and self-government partners.

I wish to point out that the duty to consult is a legal requirement that will be carried out by the government and not the council. The establishment of the indigenous advisory council does not replace section 35 obligations for consultations with rights holders under the modern treaties act.

To strengthen the indigenous capacity to participate in these processes, the federal government has allocated $40 million over two years in dedicated funding to support consultation and preparation for community readiness activities as they relate to major projects. When we invest in indigenous economies, we grow the entire country's economy. When indigenous partners lead major projects, things move faster and the results last longer. That is how we build trust. That is how we build prosperity.

To provide increased opportunities for first nations, Inuit and Métis to gain equity stakes in nation-building projects, we have doubled the indigenous loan guarantee program from $5 billion to $10 billion. This program helps indigenous groups get more affordable loans for major projects by having the federal government guarantee the loan. One example earlier this year is from the Canada Development Investment Corporation. Through its subsidiary, the Canada indigenous loan guarantee program issued its first loan guarantee for $400 million of a $736-million investment in 38 first nations.

I am pleased to answer questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for that well-documented speech on aboriginal rights and title and aboriginal issues. I was part of a team that helped put together protocols on how to breathe life into section 35 almost 20 years ago. However, we already have an example of first nation issues with the Trans Mountain pipeline that the Liberal government just got through purchasing. It did not get consent from 100% of the first nations involved with the pipeline in consultations.

Does the member believe the pipeline that is being proposed right now needs 100% consent from all the first nations involved in this project?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome my colleague to the House. I think this is the first time we have had an opportunity to exchange a few words together. I thank him for the work that he did on establishing those protocols.

I would sincerely hope that everyone on the other side of the House would ensure, as I and I am sure all of my colleagues intend to, that the things we are committing to will happen. If the conditions that are spelled out are not met to their full extent, I would not expect anything to move forward.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to explain why her government ignores scientific opinions on projects of national interest, such as the pipeline it proposes to build.

I questioned Canada's chief science advisor at the Standing Committee on Science and Research. When I asked her to confirm that the government was creating a law in order to circumvent every law but the Criminal Code, including environmental, tax and transportation laws, she told me that she was never consulted about the list of projects of national interest and then described the situation as a “nightmare”.

The Liberals, like the Conservatives, are ignoring the science. At least the Conservatives admit it. The Liberals only turn to science when it suits them. I would like my colleague to explain why, in her country, all of the chief science advisor's opinions get shelved.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at the moment there is no pipeline. There will only be a pipeline when the multitude of conditions that have been put on the table as a possibility of moving forward get met. Otherwise, there will be no pipeline to have a discussion about.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is an excellent colleague who has been here for quite some time and has seen the different phases of Conservatives in the House. Earlier, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, in B.C., talked about the fact that we are 10 years late to believe in Canada. This new brand of Conservatives constantly talks down Canada. It is almost like they have an anti-Canadian sentiment.

Can the hon. member comment on this phenomenon that we are seeing in the House right now?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is a time when we all need to be united.

Earlier I asked one of my Conservative colleagues if they would support the MOU. I am talking about the MOU that the government is putting forward that I think has a team Canada approach of working together and advancing team Canada, as we do at international trade. Overall, working together to advance the issues that matter to our constituents is the best thing that we can be doing. It is time that we all did that together.