Interim Estimates  moved: That Vote 1, in the amount of $606,858,974, under Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation —Payments, in the Interim Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2019, be concurred in.

Natural Resources  Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said that all people oppose the pipeline. I do not think so. I think there are many people across Canada who agree with the government that responsibly moving our resources is a good idea to grow the Canadian economy. The expansion of export markets, a better price for our resources, jobs for Canadians, and indigenous partnerships, that is the recipe, not making blanket statements that have no reality to them.

Interests of Quebec  Mr. Speaker, we are hardly ignoring the forest industry, including the forest industry in Quebec. We were very pleased to announce an $867-million softwood lumber package in response to the unwarranted countervail and anti-dumping duties of the United States. We continue to have very important conversations with the Government of Quebec, with the Minister of Forests in Quebec, working to make sure that our forests are protected not only for today but for tomorrow.

Interests of Quebec  Mr. Speaker, we understand the critical importance of forestry to the economies of eastern and western Canada as a source of jobs, prosperity, and opportunity. We are acutely aware of the threat that forest pests like the mountain pine beetle, emerald ash borer, and spruce budworm pose to Canada's forests.

Impact Assessment Act  Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. The three pillars of responsible energy infrastructure development are the ones he suggests, economic growth, job creation, and environmental stewardship, in partnership with indigenous communities, all of which are contained within Bill C-69.

Impact Assessment Act  Mr. Speaker, the opposition, both inside and outside the House, and others too, like to talk about a group of political decisions. We are going to hear a budget speech in a number of hours and there will be many provisions within that speech, and all will be political decisions.

Impact Assessment Act  Mr. Speaker, for major projects, the life cycle regulators do not make up the majority of the panel. The member seems to forget the range of principles that was announced by the government in January 2016 to deal with projects that were currently under review. Do I take it from her intervention that she would have squashed all of those projects under review that would have cost proponents hundreds of millions of dollars?

Impact Assessment Act  Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member rhetorically what the difference in the price of oil was between the time that the energy east project began and when the proponent decided to withdraw it. I would ask a second rhetorical question. How many pipeline approvals happened during that same period of time?

Impact Assessment Act  Mr. Speaker, the hon. member quoted one person at great length, whereas we consult with leaders in the oil and gas sector all the time. We have had meetings one on one. We have had meetings in small groups. We have given many speeches in Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland, Quebec, and Ontario about Canada's energy future.

Impact Assessment Act  Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise today to support the legislation before us. Canada was built largely on investment and innovation in our abundant natural resources, from our oil and natural gas to our minerals, like gold, silver, copper, nickel, and zinc, to our vast and diverse forests.

Natural Resources  Speaking of plans, Mr. Speaker, in October, in Winnipeg, there was a conference called Generation Energy, to which 650 people came from every corner of Canada and all around the world: Norway, the United States, Germany, indigenous leaders, oil and gas leaders, those involved in renewable energy, academics, members of the New Democratic Party.

Natural Resources  Mr. Speaker, at the Generation Energy conference in Winnipeg, at which 650 Canadians were present, we talked about the future of energy in Canada. We talked about a transition to a low-carbon economy. We talked about the importance of traditional sources. We talked about the oil and gas sector.

Natural Resources  Mr. Speaker, the answer is the same on Thursday as it was on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday of this week, and all last week. The Prime Minister has been unwavering in his support of the pipeline. Why is it in the national interest? It creates jobs and it expands our export markets.

Natural Resources  Mr. Speaker, members of the government have said in Vancouver; Calgary; Edmonton; Regina; St. John's, Newfoundland; Montreal; Toronto; and Mississauga that we believe that this pipeline is good for Canada. It is not only a good project for Alberta and British Columbia. It is good for all of Canada.

Natural Resources  Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says it in Edmonton, we say it in Vancouver, we say it in Regina, and we say it in St. John's, Newfoundland. We say it in every region of the country. Why do we say it in every region of the country? We say it because the message is a national one and it is clear.