Translate Politics Parliament in plain language.

Back to the statement

Analysis · beta

Claude Guay

Liberal on Adjournment Proceedings

Replying to Jacob Mantle (Conservative)
“Mr. Speaker, I am rising to follow up on a question that I posed to the Minister of Natural Resources not that long ago about the Liberal government’s failure to remove antidevelopment laws from our oil and gas industry that are hindering our ability to become, in the government’s own words, an energy superpower. We still have, as I pointed out to the minister, a west coast shipping ban. We still have an industrial carbon tax. CEOs have come out and said that Canada is a tough place to invest in this industry because of these issues. Energy security is fundamentally a geographic issue. Members can think about the news and the Strait of Hormuz, which is a geographic issue. One place that does not have a geographic issue is the Pacific west coast. Before TMX, exports of Canadian crude to Asia were basically negligible. Today, exports of Canadian crude are reaching Asian markets in significant amounts. In fact, the Asia Pacific Foundation estimates that it is over $500 million per month in exports, which is half a billion dollars of new Canadian exports, because of one pipeline. That is not the only issue. The barrier is not just getting exports to tidewater. That is only part of the challenge. Canadian crude is a distinctive type of heavy crude. Refineries around the world cannot always switch from one blend of crude oil to another without investments in upgrading equipment, storage, transportation, processing and refining infrastructure. Canada has another barrier that it has put in front of our oil and gas industry, one barrier that the Liberals are entirely responsible for, because Canada has chosen to restrict one of the tools that could be used to develop these new Asian markets. When the Prime Minister was the UN envoy for climate action and the financial adviser at the United Nations Climate Change Conference, commonly referred to as COP, or COP26 to be specific, in Glasgow, countries around the world, including Canada, signed what is called the Glasgow statement. The Glasgow statement, among many other things, forced countries to ban their export promotion agencies from supporting new investments in oil and gas development. Therefore, as an agency of the Government of Canada, Export Development Canada had to adhere to the Glasgow statement. If we go on their website, they have a policy from 2023, when the government signed on to the Glasgow statement, saying that they are now going to follow this and prohibit investment in those industries. That means that Export Development Canada and other Canadian export promotion agencies can no longer fund or invest in the kind of infrastructure that would facilitate the export of Canadian crude oil, in particular, to Asian markets. My question to the parliamentary secretary is whether the government will repeal that prohibition so that Canadian export agencies can once again support strategic international infrastructure that expands markets for Canadian industry to, in its own words, make Canada an energy superpower.”

Not analysed yet

A requested analysis is usually ready within half an hour; come back to this page or reload it.

Mr. Speaker, in the words of our finance minister, I have good news for my colleague. There are projects moving forward in this country. A pipeline is being built from Taylor, British Columbia, to Gordondale in Alberta. There is a major expansion of the sunrise natural gas pipeline system in British Columbia as well. I am also pleased to remind the member that the LNG Canada phase two expansion has achieved a final investment decision and is moving forward. There is significant investment, billions of dollars, going into energy infrastructure in Labrador, and there is a new transmission line being built to connect Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, which will improve the reliability of interprovincial power grids and respond to the growing demand for electricity. What does that mean? It means workers are on the job site, equipment is on the ground, communities are seeing the benefits and Canada is building again. However, projects do not move forward just by accident. Canada is also changing how our projects move forward. Through the Major Projects Office, we are bringing together federal decision-making, reducing duplication and giving proponents a clearer path from proposal to construction. The member asked when the next pipeline will be built, and the Prime Minister delivered the clearest possible answer— Jacob Mantle: I didn’t ask about the next pipeline. Claude Guay: You did last time. Mr. Speaker, on October 1, the Prime Minister confirmed that the Pacific link pipeline is of national interest. Pacific link is critical to Canada’s ambition to become a global energy superpower. Over the next year, the Major Projects Office, supported by the Canada Energy Regulator, will lead the project’s federal review process and consultation. By September 2027, the goal is to finalize conditions for this project and advance Pacific link toward construction. Canadians expect us to build, and they expect us to build responsibly. That means respecting our duty to consult indigenous people and ensuring that consultation helps shape the project, not just reacting to it. It means working with provinces, including British Columbia, because these projects cross jurisdictions and require co-operation to succeed. It means linking new infrastructure to real emissions reduction. In this case, Pacific link advanced with industry commitment to the Pathways project, a major carbon capture and storage project designed to significantly cut emissions while supporting jobs and growth. Yes, we are moving forward. We are doing it in a way that is durable, economically, environmentally and socially, and that matters.