TranslatePolitics.ca

Recent debates

8 latest topics

06-18 Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act 57 statements 06-18 Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act 19 statements 06-18 Arab Heritage Month Act 5 statements 06-18 The Economy 15 statements 06-18 Government Priorities 2 statements 06-18 Government Priorities 2 statements 06-18 Housing 12 statements 06-18 The Environment 2 statements

Private Members' Business

An Act to repeal certain restrictions on shipping

2026-05-26 Sitting 122 Showing 1–2 of 2

A bill to repeal the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act and allow oil tankers on the north coast of British Columbia. The Conservatives argued the moratorium blocks economic opportunities and that indigenous communities could benefit. The Liberals and Bloc opposed the bill, saying it was oversimplified and ideologically driven, and that the moratorium protects the environment. They debated the financial risks of pipelines and whether Canadians support the energy industry.

Official Hansard ↗

Mario Simard

Bloc Québécois 5:45 p.m.

“I want taxpayers to pay for it all so big oil companies can use the pipeline you want without having to pay for it themselves.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, earlier in his speech, my colleague referred to Enbridge's CEO. There is a quote I like from the Enbridge CEO. He said he was not willing to take the financial risks that come with a pipeline. The CEO of Enbridge believes that, if a pipeline is to be built, it should be paid for with public money. The pipeline project they are talking about and for which the government wants to repeal a law that protects nature is nothing more than a fantasy. I would like my colleague to enlighten me. Does he agree that it is up to all taxpayers to pay for oil and gas infrastructure that will benefit the oil companies? Also, before throwing out regulations like these, should he not ensure that, at the very least, someone is prepared to be the proponent of a project like the pipeline?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Mario Simard

Bloc Québécois 6:00 p.m.

“I talk about a book to appear smart. I think supporting oil is an ideological mindset. I notice my colleague supports pipelines. I want to protect my favorite industry. I'm upset the government wants to invest in a different industry than mines. I think any bill that helps oil is absurd. Companies should pay for their own pipelines. Oil companies are greedy. They cut jobs and don't build pipelines. I don't want to remove environmental rules to make it easier for oil companies. I respect one member, but not his party.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that the Bloc Québécois will be voting against Bill C-264, which simply seeks to repeal the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act. When I look at this, I see an irrational bill that can perhaps only be explained by an ideological mindset we are seeing more and more of, one that amounts to saying that anything goes for the oil industry. I will explain what I mean when I say that “anything goes for the oil industry.” The idea occurred to me earlier when I asked my colleague a question and he replied—and I am going to take the liberty of speaking in English, which I never do here—“I believe in pipelines.” That is quite the statement. I am a fan of Dostoevsky. This makes me think of a novel by Dostoevsky called Demons, which came out at the end of the 19th century, where Dostoevsky, in the face of ideological excesses, poses a rather simple question: Is everything permitted? Is everything permitted in the name of an ideology? What strikes me today about this downward spiral we are currently experiencing whenever there is a crisis—be it in response to the tariff crisis, or even when we were going through the COVID-19 pandemic, or a crisis of national unity—is the fact that anything goes. The only solution the Liberal and Conservative parties can come up with to address these issues is to support the gas and oil sector and call for more state intervention to develop oil infrastructure. The truth is that we are living in a completely absurd situation for this to be happening. We are in a tariff war with the Americans. What are the two economic sectors most affected by this tariff crisis? They are in Quebec. These are the aluminum industry, facing 50% tariffs, and the softwood lumber sector, facing around 45% in combined countervailing duties, anti-dumping duties and tariffs. These are the two sectors most affected by the current tariff dispute with the United States. What has been the government's response to this threat? It has been to say that we need to invest in our energy sector and increase energy exports. That is what the government has chosen. It signed a memorandum of understanding with the Government of Alberta, and now we are faced with a bill like the one my colleague just introduced. There seems to be a sort of one-upmanship going on between the Liberals and the Conservatives. Who is willing to go the furthest to support the oil and gas sector? That is what is going on. I do not think we would have seen a bill like this a few months ago if the government had not fallen into the trap of the memorandum of understanding with Alberta. I have seen this kind of one-upmanship many times over the past several years. When I arrived here in 2019, what surprised me was hearing my Conservative colleagues shouting day in and day out, “build a pipeline”. Even though hydroelectricity is important to us, I doubt I would ever see a Quebecker in the National Assembly shouting for the construction of power lines. This is not a lifestyle. It is not a political project. Another thing that struck me was seeing my Conservative colleagues wearing buttons that read “I love oil & gas”. When I was a boy of 16 or 17, I had a button from my favourite rock band. That rock band represented my identity. It was important to me. Later on, and this still happens in the Bloc Québécois, we wear symbols that are specific to Quebec. We stick Quebec flags on our computers. That is because of our identity. If we were to define what is Quebec's identity, we would speak about culture and language. For some Conservatives, one part of their identity is the oil and gas sector. That is rather surprising in the current context. In fact, it runs quite deep. I remember one of my Conservative colleagues moving a motion stating that oil is irreplaceable. We debated that for an entire day. If I were asked to think about something that is irreplaceable for me, I would first and foremost think about my wife and son. Perhaps after that, I would mention water, air and the essentials of life. I would certainly not think about oil. I asked whether this is a situation where anything goes. What we are seeing today is akin to saying that oil is irreplaceable. This would repeal legislation that was put in place to protect the environment in order to promote the oil sector's agenda for the sake of a hypothetical pipeline. That is the question that I asked my colleague earlier. He spoke about the CEO of Enbridge, who described the difficulties involved in building oil and gas infrastructure. However, the Enbridge CEO also said that he personally was not prepared to take on the economic risks of building infrastructure. That is where a reasonable Conservative would draw the line. I enjoyed hearing the leader of the official opposition straight-out say that corporate welfare exists and that companies want their infrastructure paid for. Those are not my words. Those are the words of the leader of the official opposition. It is up to those companies to pay. However, oil and gas sector officials are saying that, in fact, it should fall on the government to assume the economic risk associated with this infrastructure. It is outrageous. When we look at the numbers from 2021 to 2024, the oil and gas sector raked in $131 billion in profits. Not so long ago, at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, we heard from representatives of the major unions that support the energy sector because they have workers in that sector They told us that we are seeing a dramatic increase in production while there are fewer jobs. How is that possible? It is possible because the people at these big oil and gas companies are greedy and are willing to invest in the automation of their processes to cut jobs and production costs. However, they are not willing to invest in infrastructure. Today, we are being presented with a motion that asks us to scrap environmental regulations. Who stands to gain from this? It is certainly not the public. This is to make life easier for the oil and gas giants. In return, they come asking us to pay for their infrastructure. It is absolutely outrageous. I do not understand how we got here. Even though we are in a crisis, I do not understand how people who are supposed to be rational, whether they are Liberals or Conservatives, have reached this point. I would like to conclude by saying the following. As members know, I have a great deal of respect for the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie. Many people have been critical of the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie. He may make an announcement tomorrow. I know that the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie is a well-intentioned person. I know he has decided to do something that is not often done in the environmental movement, namely, to set aside certain convictions in order to be pragmatic. He thought he would try to bring about concrete change. There is something very simple in politics: A person either sticks to their convictions, or they choose to set their convictions aside for a moment to try to advance their ideas in a more responsible way. I get the impression that the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie has reached a point of no return and that today he is going to return to his old convictions. He has realized that the government may have gone too far. In my opinion, the bill proposed by my colleague is a manifestation of the current excesses in the oil and gas sector. I sincerely hope that a large number of members of the House will vote against it.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

What they said. What they meant.

Recent debates