Translate Politics Parliament in plain language.

Natural Resources

Question period exchanges on natural resources, centred on the federal ban on oil tankers along British Columbia’s north coast. Conservatives said a private company is ready to ship up to 250,000 barrels a day through Prince Rupert without government money, asked the government to lift the ban or grant an exemption, and argued the northern route is as safe as the southern route, where tankers are permitted. Liberals pointed to their support for other energy projects, including the Pacific Link pipeline to the west coast, pipeline expansions and LNG projects, and cited the B.C. premier’s support for Pacific Link and record shipments at the Port of Vancouver.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text

6 statements

Rachael Thomas

Conservative
“A private company is ready to ship 250,000 barrels of oil a day to world markets without government money. This would create jobs and help our economy. The only thing stopping it is the oil tanker ban. I want the government to remove this ban.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Canada has the oil the world needs, the workers to produce it and the rail lines to get it to the Pacific. Strathcona Resources is ready to ship up to 250,000 barrels per day through Prince Rupert to global markets. This would mean more jobs, a stronger Canadian economy and more customers for our oil, and the best part is that no government subsidies are necessary. In fact, this is a company that is ready to bring in its own private dollars and make it happen. The only thing standing in the way is the Liberals’ tanker ban. Will they do the right thing, advocate for the well-being of Canadians and remove it?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Tim Hodgson

Liberal
“The new Conservative Premier of British Columbia supports the Pacific Link project because it will create jobs. Other Conservatives support it too. The opposition just wants to fight. I want them to stop fighting and join us in supporting this project.”

  • Government answer in Question Period

    Relevance 32 of 100

    None of this answer addressed the specific question that was asked.

    See full analysis

  • Government answer in Question Period

    Signal 43 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, let me share what the new Conservative Premier of British Columbia just said: “Our government’s focus is on the project in front of us.... Pacific Link has been declared in the national interest, it takes a southern route, and it will create...jobs [for] British Columbia.” Other Conservatives seem to be able to get on board and support Pacific link. These guys just look for opportunities to fight. We are interested in building, not fighting. Why do they not join us?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade C View analysis

Rachael Thomas

Conservative
“I want the government to end the tanker ban or make an exemption for this project. It does not need government money. It only needs this rule removed so private companies can invest, create jobs, and sell Canadian oil to the world.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, this is not an either-or decision, and at the end of the day it is a federal matter, so it is up to this government to make the choice. Will it take the tanker ban and remove it or, at the bare minimum, at least grant an exemption so that this private investment can go through, so that Canadian jobs can be created, so that oil can get to world markets and so that we as a country can be proud of what we produce here at home? The government is more than happy to give handouts to corporations that come begging. This one is not. It just needs this obstacle out of the way.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Tim Hodgson

Liberal
“We are building and expanding major energy and pipeline projects across the country. Conservatives just complain instead of helping us build Canada.”

  • Government answer in Question Period

    Relevance 28 of 100

    None of this answer addressed the specific question that was asked.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, here is what this government is doing: expanding the Taylor to Gordondale pipeline; expanding the Sunrise pipeline; building Pacific link, a million-barrel-a-day pipeline to the west coast; building LNG Canada phase one; supporting Woodfibre; supporting Tilbury; and supporting Ksi Lisims. All the Conservatives do is complain and look for things to fight about. Why do they not help build Canada with us?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade C– View analysis

Jeff Kibble

Conservative
“The government allows oil tankers on the southern coast but bans them on the northern coast. The northern route is just as safe, has less traffic, and could follow the same safety rules. This ban stops Canadian companies from shipping oil overseas. I want the Prime Minister to grant an exemption to let tankers use the northern route.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, under the Liberal tanker moratorium, up to 34 tankers can be approved every month on the southern route, yet the northern route is equally safe, has less marine traffic and can have the same protections as the south. Having navigated the navy’s tanker on the B.C. coast for years, I know what it takes to operate tankers safely, and the northern route can also meet the same standards as the south. This is a Liberal embargo on Canada and companies like Strathcona Resources that are standing by to ship Canadian oil overseas. Will the Prime Minister immediately grant an exemption for the northern route, yes or no?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis

Steven MacKinnon

Liberal
“The west coast economy is growing. The Port of Vancouver just set a record for shipments, which helps us trade with more countries and will help double our exports outside the United States over the next 10 years. We are building British Columbia and Canada.”

  • Government answer in Question Period

    Relevance 47 of 100

    None of this answer addressed the specific question that was asked.

    See full analysis

  • Government answer in Question Period

    Signal 39 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, there is so much going on on the west coast that is driving up economic growth and opportunity for that member’s constituents that it is hard to name them. In addition to what my colleague, the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, just laid out, let me just congratulate the port of Vancouver for an all-time record of shipments going out of that port that is building our country strong and diversifying our trade markets. It has us on the path to double non-U.S. exports over the next 10 years. We are building British Columbia and we are building Canada—

View on ourcommons.ca Grade C+ View analysis

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 157

All 35 items ·
  1. Oral Questions Finance 12 statements
  2. Oral Questions Intergovernmental Relations 6 statements
  3. Oral Questions Finance 4 statements
  4. Oral Questions Intergovernmental Affairs 6 statements
  5. Oral Questions Finance 10 statements
  6. Oral Questions Steel and Aluminum Industry 13 statements
  7. Oral Questions Natural Resources 6 statements
  8. Oral Questions The Economy 8 statements
  9. Oral Questions Labour 2 statements
  10. Oral Questions Parks Canada 2 statements
  11. Oral Questions Labour 2 statements
  12. Oral Questions Taxation 8 statements
  13. Private Members' Business Points of Order 2 statements
  14. Oral Questions Finance 6 statements
  15. Government Orders Safe Social Media Act 23 statements
  16. Private Members' Business Protecting Young Persons from Exposure to Pornography Act 7 statements
  17. Government Orders Safe Social Media Act 202 statements
  18. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  19. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements