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—