Discussion · Private Members' Business
Garnett Genuis Conservative
“I want the House to pass this bill. It ends the ban on oil tankers off the north coast of British Columbia. The Liberals pretend to support energy projects, but they keep laws that block pipelines. If the Prime Minister really wants to build these projects, he should vote with us on Wednesday to get rid of this red tape.”
“Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to address the House this morning and to express my strong support for Bill C-264. This is a bill that would finally repeal the Liberal tanker ban. This is an opportunity to talk about pipeline policy in this country and to call out the slipperiness of the Liberal government. It is clear that over the last 10 years, the Conservative opposition has won the public debate on pipelines. There is certainly very strong public support for the construction of pipelines and other major national energy projects, and this creates the conditions in which the government faces a political imperative to try to pretend to be more supportive of energy infrastructure projects than it has been in the past. However, while we have won the public debate around the construction of pipelines and other major energy infrastructure, the government continues to obstruct, at a policy level, actual progress on these issues. We have won the public debate, but we have not won the policy battle. That is what Bill C-264 tries to do: complete policy work that certainly reflects the public demand for these kinds of projects to go forward. To understand, though, how the government says one thing and does another when it comes to pipelines, I think it is important to dig into the history. If we look at the history over the last 10 or 15 years as it relates to pipelines, the government has done everything possible to obstruct pipelines and major energy infrastructure from going forward. It has also tried to do so indirectly. Those who are familiar with crime films will recognize the phrase “make it look like an accident.” The government has tried to kill pipelines and make it look like an accident. Let us talk about where we were in 2015 when Justin Trudeau became prime minister. Looking back at the record of the Harper government, in 2015, four major pipelines were constructed and a fifth had been approved, the northern gateway project. The Liberals promised in the 2015 election to kill the northern gateway pipeline. They did two things: first, they killed it directly; and second, they legislated to prohibit energy exports from the northern coast of B.C. This was designed, or intended, to kill the northern gateway project and the opportunities associated with it. This was a decision of the government to kill that project in two ways: first, to kill it directly; and second, to legislate to prevent those energy exports. The Liberal government subsequently passed Bill C-69, adding additional challenges and barriers for pipeline construction, and killed the energy east pipeline. It did so by applying conditions to it that had never been applied previously to other development projects. Even then, the government wanted to say it was a private sector decision to kill the energy east pipeline. It changed the game by piling impossible conditions on the project and then said, “Oh, too bad. The proponents killed it.” This is part of the “kill major infrastructure projects and make it look like an accident” approach of the government, which is to apply legislative and other policy barriers that make it very difficult, if not impossible, for these kinds of projects to move forward. Now we have a different Prime Minister, who has written extensively, in a negative way, about the development of our energy resources, but now that he is Prime Minister, he wants people to think that he is maybe more supportive of these developments. The simple thing he could do is repeal the antidevelopment rules that were put in place by his predecessor. If the Prime Minister is really different from Justin Trudeau, he could simply repeal Bill C-69 and Bill C-48. These are two major anti-energy bills that his predecessor put forward. In particular, he could repeal Bill C-48, which is the bill regarding the tanker exclusion zone. That is the bill that Bill C-264, which we are debating today, would repeal. If the Prime Minister is sincere about getting pipelines built, he could simply vote in favour of this bill, or he could have moved to repeal Bill C-48 earlier. However, the approach the Liberal government has taken has not been, notably, to repeal the barriers that were put in place by his predecessor to prevent energy development. Instead, the Liberals brought us Bill C-5, which was the option for the government to approve, in exceptional circumstances, that some projects would not be subject to the rules that apply to every other project. Instead of simply removing the barriers that prevent development, they created a process in which those barriers that prevent development from moving forward are still in place, but if someone wants to build a project, they could go, cap in hand, to the government to ask It would refer them to this Major Projects Office. That will look at the project, and it will be designated and reviewed by various panels. Maybe at the end of it, they might get exceptional treatment for one project, even though the barriers would remain in place for all the other projects. If we could build major projects with red tape, the government would be all over it, because that is what it has been building: more and more red tape. They try to make it look like the Liberals are really trying, that they are going to add more offices, say that people can send their project here, refer it over here, and then this panel will take a look at it. Then maybe at the end of the day, they might create exemptions to the framework that was designed to prevent these projects from going forward. Conservatives have a much simpler solution, which is to get rid of the red tape and get rid of the laws that prevent these major projects from going forward so that we can build things again. This is what I think the public wants. The public wants major energy projects to go forward. We saw great news out of British Columbia. It is a strong endorsement by the voters of British Columbia for a government that is committed to creating jobs and building opportunity. There is a government now in British Columbia that sees how we can prosper together as a country instead of trying to make B.C. the barrier to exports that the previous NDP government wanted it to be. We see in that result, and in the expression of voters across the country, a desire for these kinds of projects to move forward. The government is slippery and savvy politically. The government knows it does not want to challenge directly this desire for major projects to go forward, so instead, it is just trying to make it look really difficult. The government wants to leave in place these barriers. It wants to add on red tape. It wants to promise that it might allow workarounds in certain situations if things are designated as such. The simple thing that the government can and should do to make it so much easier for major projects in energy, pipelines and other major projects, to go forward, is vote for Bill C-264. It would not add more laws. It would repeal a previous law that was put in place to block development. This is going to be a clear test for the government on Wednesday. When we vote on Bill C-264, we will see whether individual members of the government from energy-producing regions, as well as members from other regions, are prepared to vote in favour of a bill that would clear away red tape and create opportunities for major projects to go forward, or if they will vote to leave that red tape in place as an excuse to say they would like to, but it is just really difficult. It is really difficult because we have a law that makes it difficult. The building of major infrastructure could happen much more easily if we had not had governments for 11 years that tried to prevent it from happening. Let us underline that it is the same people. An hon. member: You guys have to get over Trudeau. Garnett Genuis: Madam Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North, who is heckling me right now, has been here for a long time. He is not new. He voted for all these measures. In fact, I asked the Liberal member for Calgary Confederation, who is new, when he was first elected, if he would have voted in favour of C-48, and he said yes, and he is from Calgary. It is the same group of people, and in the cases where there are newer members, they profess to think the same way as the previous ones. The member said we are talking too much about Trudeau. I would be very happy to turn the page on the disastrous years of Justin Trudeau. Does the member know how we can turn the page on the disastrous record of Justin Trudeau? We can vote in favour of this bill, which would repeal a centrepiece part of Justin Trudeau’s radical antidevelopment agenda. The Prime Minister can show he is different on Wednesday by voting in favour of Bill C-264. If he were to vote in favour of Bill C-264, I will say that maybe there is some real change, to coin a phrase, but if he were to vote for the Justin Trudeau policy on Wednesday, we will have to conclude that they are doubling down on the same energy policy. Yes, they are trying to nuance it in the communications in light of the fact that we have won the public debate on this issue, but they have not really changed. Again, we will see in the vote on Wednesday.”
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to address the House this morning and to express my strong support for Bill C-264. This is a bill that would finally repeal the Liberal tanker ban. This is an opportunity to talk about pipeline policy in this country and to call out the slipperiness of the Liberal government. It is clear that over the last 10 years, the Conservative opposition has won the public debate on pipelines. There is certainly very strong public support for the construction of pipelines and other major national energy projects, and this creates the conditions in which the government faces a political imperative to try to pretend to be more supportive of energy infrastructure projects than it has been in the past. However, while we have won the public debate around the construction of pipelines and other major energy infrastructure, the government continues to obstruct, at a policy level, actual progress on these issues. We have won the public debate, but we have not won the policy battle. That is what Bill C-264 tries to do: complete policy work that certainly reflects the public demand for these kinds of projects to go forward. To understand, though, how the government says one thing and does another when it comes to pipelines, I think it is important to dig into the history. If we look at the history over the last 10 or 15 years as it relates to pipelines, the government has done everything possible to obstruct pipelines and major energy infrastructure from going forward. It has also tried to do so indirectly. Those who are familiar with crime films will recognize the phrase “make it look like an accident.” The government has tried to kill pipelines and make it look like an accident. Let us talk about where we were in 2015 when Justin Trudeau became prime minister. Looking back at the record of the Harper government, in 2015, four major pipelines were constructed and a fifth had been approved, the northern gateway project. The Liberals promised in the 2015 election to kill the northern gateway pipeline. They did two things: first, they killed it directly; and second, they legislated to prohibit energy exports from the northern coast of B.C. This was designed, or intended, to kill the northern gateway project and the opportunities associated with it. This was a decision of the government to kill that project in two ways: first, to kill it directly; and second, to legislate to prevent those energy exports. The Liberal government subsequently passed Bill C-69, adding additional challenges and barriers for pipeline construction, and killed the energy east pipeline. It did so by applying conditions to it that had never been applied previously to other development projects. Even then, the government wanted to say it was a private sector decision to kill the energy east pipeline. It changed the game by piling impossible conditions on the project and then said, “Oh, too bad. The proponents killed it.” This is part of the “kill major infrastructure projects and make it look like an accident” approach of the government, which is to apply legislative and other policy barriers that make it very difficult, if not impossible, for these kinds of projects to move forward. Now we have a different Prime Minister, who has written extensively, in a negative way, about the development of our energy resources, but now that he is Prime Minister, he wants people to think that he is maybe more supportive of these developments. The simple thing he could do is repeal the antidevelopment rules that were put in place by his predecessor. If the Prime Minister is really different from Justin Trudeau, he could simply repeal Bill C-69 and Bill C-48. These are two major anti-energy bills that his predecessor put forward. In particular, he could repeal Bill C-48, which is the bill regarding the tanker exclusion zone. That is the bill that Bill C-264, which we are debating today, would repeal. If the Prime Minister is sincere about getting pipelines built, he could simply vote in favour of this bill, or he could have moved to repeal Bill C-48 earlier. However, the approach the Liberal government has taken has not been, notably, to repeal the barriers that were put in place by his predecessor to prevent energy development. Instead, the Liberals brought us Bill C-5, which was the option for the government to approve, in exceptional circumstances, that some projects would not be subject to the rules that apply to every other project. Instead of simply removing the barriers that prevent development, they created a process in which those barriers that prevent development from moving forward are still in place, but if someone wants to build a project, they could go, cap in hand, to the government to ask It would refer them to this Major Projects Office. That will look at the project, and it will be designated and reviewed by various panels. Maybe at the end of it, they might get exceptional treatment for one project, even though the barriers would remain in place for all the other projects. If we could build major projects with red tape, the government would be all over it, because that is what it has been building: more and more red tape. They try to make it look like the Liberals are really trying, that they are going to add more offices, say that people can send their project here, refer it over here, and then this panel will take a look at it. Then maybe at the end of the day, they might create exemptions to the framework that was designed to prevent these projects from going forward. Conservatives have a much simpler solution, which is to get rid of the red tape and get rid of the laws that prevent these major projects from going forward so that we can build things again. This is what I think the public wants. The public wants major energy projects to go forward. We saw great news out of British Columbia. It is a strong endorsement by the voters of British Columbia for a government that is committed to creating jobs and building opportunity. There is a government now in British Columbia that sees how we can prosper together as a country instead of trying to make B.C. the barrier to exports that the previous NDP government wanted it to be. We see in that result, and in the expression of voters across the country, a desire for these kinds of projects to move forward. The government is slippery and savvy politically. The government knows it does not want to challenge directly this desire for major projects to go forward, so instead, it is just trying to make it look really difficult. The government wants to leave in place these barriers. It wants to add on red tape. It wants to promise that it might allow workarounds in certain situations if things are designated as such. The simple thing that the government can and should do to make it so much easier for major projects in energy, pipelines and other major projects, to go forward, is vote for Bill C-264. It would not add more laws. It would repeal a previous law that was put in place to block development. This is going to be a clear test for the government on Wednesday. When we vote on Bill C-264, we will see whether individual members of the government from energy-producing regions, as well as members from other regions, are prepared to vote in favour of a bill that would clear away red tape and create opportunities for major projects to go forward, or if they will vote to leave that red tape in place as an excuse to say they would like to, but it is just really difficult. It is really difficult because we have a law that makes it difficult. The building of major infrastructure could happen much more easily if we had not had governments for 11 years that tried to prevent it from happening. Let us underline that it is the same people. An hon. member: You guys have to get over Trudeau. Garnett Genuis: Madam Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North, who is heckling me right now, has been here for a long time. He is not new. He voted for all these measures. In fact, I asked the Liberal member for Calgary Confederation, who is new, when he was first elected, if he would have voted in favour of C-48, and he said yes, and he is from Calgary. It is the same group of people, and in the cases where there are newer members, they profess to think the same way as the previous ones. The member said we are talking too much about Trudeau. I would be very happy to turn the page on the disastrous years of Justin Trudeau. Does the member know how we can turn the page on the disastrous record of Justin Trudeau? We can vote in favour of this bill, which would repeal a centrepiece part of Justin Trudeau’s radical antidevelopment agenda. The Prime Minister can show he is different on Wednesday by voting in favour of Bill C-264. If he were to vote in favour of Bill C-264, I will say that maybe there is some real change, to coin a phrase, but if he were to vote for the Justin Trudeau policy on Wednesday, we will have to conclude that they are doubling down on the same energy policy. Yes, they are trying to nuance it in the communications in light of the fact that we have won the public debate on this issue, but they have not really changed. Again, we will see in the vote on Wednesday.