44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 27, 2024 11:00AM
- May/27/24 11:15:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague seems like he may be confused about a few of the facts. I am just wondering if he might want to correct the record. First of all, he stated somewhat erroneously that all first nations along the corridor wanted the northern gateway pipeline. As someone who lives along the corridor of what was proposed to be the northern gateway pipeline, I can assure him that this is not true. It is a fact that is more usually ascribed to the Coastal GasLink pipeline, which is a totally different project. Most of the bands located along the pipeline route did sign agreements with the company, but not all of them. In fact, the Hagwilget band did not sign an agreement with that company, but that is fair enough.
He also referred to the largest private sector project in Canadian history as being the LNG Canada project, which is indeed true. It is a project I had a chance to tour a couple of weeks ago. However, he mentioned that it is in Prince Rupert, when actually it is in Kitimat. I just wonder if he would like to rise as a British Columbian and correct the record.
201 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 11:16:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his correction as far as Kitimat, but Prince Rupert will benefit also. That entire riding will benefit, and it will also benefit from a new government, hopefully sooner rather than later.
38 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise here in the House and have many of my colleagues join to listen as I contribute some points to the debate we are having here tonight, particularly on our Conservative amendment. Many would argue it would be common sense. I look forward to getting into that tonight a little bit more.
However, Mr. Speaker, you are from Nova Scotia. The legislation here impacts that province. It also impacts the great people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I had the honour to visit, a couple of weeks ago, the province. I had some great visits, travelling many miles, all the way from St. John's and Mount Pearl in the Avalon region, all the way across to Clarenville, Grand Falls, Windsor, Corner Brook, Deer Lake, Stephenville, Kippens, and all points in between. I think the debate here is timely tonight, as we talk about what the priorities are for the good people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
However, I want to give some breaking news here in the House tonight, if I could; breaking news that is fresh, hot off the press of some by-elections, a by-election that just took place in Newfoundland and Labrador. The Liberals love intruding into provincial jurisdiction on issues, although they should not. They get struck down by courts and we have these prolonged problems. I am going to bring in provincial jurisdiction here because in Newfoundland and Labrador, in that by-election tonight, in the riding of Baie Verte-Green Bay, the votes are in. It was a carbon tax by-election.
After nine years of the NDP-Liberal government, here is an interesting thing. Both of the PC and the Liberal candidates endorsed the Leader of the Opposition in Ottawa. The Prime Minister has become so toxic, even Liberals in Newfoundland and Labrador want nothing to do with him. The results are in tonight and it was very conclusive. The voter turnout in the by-election tonight in central Newfoundland was 57%. It was 15 points higher than it was in the last general election in that riding. It was a close riding in 2021. The Liberals got about 52%, the PCs got 47%. Tonight, the Conservative candidate who opposes the carbon tax got 80% of the vote.
Congratulations to Lin Paddock from Ottawa. I am thankful to him for fighting the carbon tax, fighting and standing up against the punitive measures that the Prime Minister and the NDP are imposing on his province.
That by-election followed, in Newfoundland and Labrador, a by-election that just took place about a month ago. Again, it was the same thing around central Newfoundland. There was a historically high voter turnout in that riding. It took a long-time Liberal riding and flipped it to the PCs; again, a carbon tax by-election. They are just building the momentum. If we go to Nova Scotia, in Pictou West, the minister of housing's own riding, right in that region, the PCs not only held that riding, but they drastically increased their vote share and the turnout there was very solid for a by-election.
There was another example, absolutely, in Preston only a short while ago. For the first time, in a long-time Liberal or NDP back-and-forth riding for the most part, there was a Conservative victory there as well, another carbon tax by-election.
I raise this point tonight because there is a theme developing in Atlantic Canada. It is going from Liberal to common-sense Conservative. Here is the thing that is interesting. It is building the momentum. The Prime Minister and the NDP and Liberals know they are extremely unpopular. They know that their plan for this country is more and more unpopular, the more Canadians learn about it. The priorities that they try to address are out of touch with the realities on the ground.
After giving colleagues these updates of these carbon tax by-elections in those respective provinces, I cannot wait for our carbon tax election here to take place all across Canada. Canadians are going to have their say. I think the turnout and the blue wave are going to be equal in every part of this country.
I want to talk about Bill C-49 here tonight. I do listen to what the member for Kingston and the Islands says, believe it or not. I have to because both he and the member for Winnipeg North speak quite a bit here in the chamber.
Just a few minutes ago, the member for Kingston and the Islands was trying to make this argument about the Constitution and how the Liberals listen to the Constitution, respect it and talking about their actions when it comes to their legislation and bills. This bill here, or more specifically, our Conservative amendment, actually just call it out for what it is, hypocrisy. It is saying one thing and doing the absolute opposite.
He goes on about how they do all this. Well, Bill C-49 has a lot of very similar provisions to Bill C-69, which has garnered a lot of attention when it comes to developing our natural resources and realizing our economic potential. It has done a lot of damage in every part of the country. It has turned away, turned down and cancelled investments by the hundreds of millions of dollars in this country. The thing about Bill C-69 was that, for months and for years, Liberal ministers would go out and say, “There is nothing wrong. The bill is constitutional. It is going to be upheld.” Well, the Supreme Court had its say, and guess what. It did not uphold it. The bill was struck down.
Now, moving forward, we have Bill C-49. Our Conservative amendment tonight is saying that we need to take this back to committee. There are serious flaws with what the government is trying to do because many of the same provisions that were struck down in Bill C-69 are embedded and repeated here in Bill C-49.
Mark my words. I am going to put it right here, in Hansard, in the blues and on video here tonight: This piece of legislation is going to be dithered and delayed for years. It is going to be challenged. Look at what happened with respect to Bill C-69. Liberals and then the New Democrats said, “Oh, it is all fine. Do not worry about it. The Conservatives are just talking negative about it.” The government ignored it, and guess what happened. It is the chaos coming around Bill C-69. The uncertainty, the lack of answers from that side and the lack of fixing the problem the Liberals were warned about in the first place are challenging the economic environment in our country. It is turning away investment. It is turning away projects that could be completed here at home, creating great Canadian paycheques. The Liberals are doing the exact same thing. Members could look and see that there are now the same inefficiencies that are here in the Impact Assessment Act, in sections 61, 62, 169 and 170. The list goes on about how they are constantly dithering and delaying.
If members do not want to take my word for it here with what I have said so far, let us just look at the number of projects already stalled under the Liberal-NDP government. The Liberals are blocking projects with red tape left, right and centre. Bill C-49 would only make it worse. There is Beaver Dam gold mine in Nova Scotia. It has been nine years, and it is still not done. Fifteen Mile Stream gold project is going to be a massive $123 million investment. After six years, that project, 95 kilometres northeast of Halifax, is still being delayed, and with three years extension, it is still not done. Then we have the Joyce Lake direct shipping iron ore project, which would be a $270-million investment in Newfoundland and Labrador. After 11 years, it is still waiting and not approved. There is Cape Ray gold and silver mine in Newfoundland and Labrador. It has been eight years, and it is still waiting and not going through. The list goes on and on. It is the definition of insanity.
I have said it before about the budget, and I will say the same thing about the Liberals' efforts to remove red tape and unleash the economic potential of this country. We have so many natural resources. We have so many jobs that could be created in this country, and what the Liberals have done time and time again, and what they are doing with Bill C-49, is causing legal nightmares. They are going to cause red tape nightmares for years to come, and it is Canadian workers in Newfoundland and Labrador and in Nova Scotia who are going to be hurt.
We are putting this amendment forward. We are opposing the constant red tape of the Liberals. After nine years, Canadians have had enough, and I do not blame them.
1530 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 11:26:10 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, red tape is indeed a rather serious problem. It is a problem not just with the Liberal government, but also with the Conservatives before this and the Liberals before them and so on, back almost to the beginning of time.
Beyond the issue of red tape, what happens sometimes is that the government rushes to introduce botched legislation in an apparent attempt to clear its conscience.
Does my colleague agree with me on that? I would like his answer to also take into account committee work.
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member from the Bloc a little, and I am going to disagree with her a little as well.
I agree that this is a shoddy bill. The government has been warned. The Liberals and the NDP want to ram this through, and they have been reminded over and over again, including in some great speeches here tonight, of how this is going to end up in the courts, like Bill C-69. I agree with her on that. They are putting it through and they do not care. It is going to get stalled for years and they are going to blame everybody but themselves.
I find that I disagree with the Bloc, though, too. I agree a little more, if I could, about simplifying the environmental assessment process: one environmental assessment, federal or provincial. We do not need the double red tape taking years. The list goes on of the number of companies and projects that have been caught up in this.
The thing with the Bloc Québécois is that it wants to cancel, as an example, all offshore petroleum or the wonderful oil and gas sector, with a number of jobs in this country. The irony is that when we cancel a project here in Canada, what happens is that countries like Russia, Venezuela and other countries that do not give two hoots about emissions reductions are going to take up that limit. Trust me: They are not having the same conversations about conservation and good measures that we are having here in Canada.
The Bloc Québécois is saying these projects and paycheques belong in Canada, but it wants to export them around the world.
291 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 11:28:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague can speak to many of the countries around the world that have asked for Canadian energy and have been turned down by the Prime Minister. Most recently, there have been Germany, Poland, Japan, Greece and others as well. These really are lost opportunities. We know that five or six years ago the United States was barely exporting LNG, and now it is one of the largest exporters of LNG in the world. Really, this is a lost opportunity for Canadians, Canadian businesses and Canadian workers.
I am wondering if the member can speak to that.
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 11:29:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from British Columbia is correct. A number of times leaders of other countries have come to Canada asking it to tap into its natural resources, LNG and all of the vast natural resources we have to offer, and the government's line is that there is no business case for it. It is nonsense. The irony is that the government literally says those replies on the days or weeks when leaders from around the world are coming to Canada asking us to help them do all of that.
Here is the thing that is interesting with the Liberals. It is the equivalent of saying the budget will balance itself. People just laugh now. After nine years of lectures they give on that side of the aisle, we can throw their record back at them. A number of projects are being cancelled in this country with the delays, dithering and red tape that goes on. The Liberals act as if they have just been here for nine days, when they have been here for nine years. It is worse, not better, than when they started. How many more months or years do they think they need before they make things better?
Better yet, let us just call the election and let Canadians decide the direction of this country. I have a feeling they are going to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.
242 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 11:30:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, one of the things we have heard tonight is that the Liberals are ramming the bill through. Is it just a shot or is there some darker motive? They know they will be in trouble and some things will never get done.
44 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I agree. At one point, I would have said that I do not understand what the government is doing, but after a while, one knows full well what they are doing. The Liberals and the NDP are antidevelopment. They are anti-Canadian jobs. They are doing everything they can to suppress investment in this country.
Look at what Bill C-49 would do. It is going to be caught up in the courts. There is going to be chaos and confusion. Look at Bill C-69 and what it has done to our natural resources sector. It has been devastating. It has been struck down in court. It will be the same thing here. The Liberal record after nine years is turning away investment in this country. We go through the laundry list and they keep saying they are proposing new ideas. It is the same failed approach that got us in this mess in the first place. It is time for a fresh start. Bill C-49 and their other efforts are not worth it.
178 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to join debate in the House of Commons, even quite late on a Monday evening. We are discussing Bill C-49, a bill the government tabled to solve regulatory issues and bring them in line with other bills it had passed, in particular, the Impact Assessment Act, Bill C-69 of the 42nd Parliament.
The problem with Bill C-49, as well as the sudden urge to ensure its passage by invoking closure and using procedural tools to force a vote on it, is this: Since the time the government tabled the bill at first reading to bring existing environmental regulations into line with the other red tape it brought in with Bill C-69, significant portions of Bill C-69 were struck down in court.
The prudent action any government would take in this situation would be to remedy the portions of its existing red-tape regime that have been found to be unconstitutional. The government has been found to have trammelled the constitutional prerogatives of provinces. This is what the Supreme Court found in its review of Bill C-69. However, the government is persisting, through Bill C-49, in taking the same unconstitutional framework and applying it to offshore projects, both oil and gas drilling projects and future renewable energy projects, such as offshore wind production or perhaps tidal electrical generation.
On this side of the House, we are the party of energy. Canadians need reliable, affordable and abundant energy. That energy could come from any of a variety of sources. We support all forms of energy that can deliver on those basic points of affordability, availability and reliability. Different parts of the country are able to produce energy in different ways. The potential for offshore in its oil and gas potential has brought, in fairly recent memory, tremendous economic benefit to Newfoundland and Labrador. For the first half or more of my life, this was by far the poorest region in Canada, with the lowest per capita GDP. It is a part of the country that really suffered economically and had the lowest standards of living in Canada.
We have seen in a generation what energy production can do for that part of the world and how so many people from Newfoundland and Labrador have also helped build Alberta and its energy projects. In addition to that, there is tremendous potential for offshore renewable energy. However, taking this unconstitutional model from the government's earlier bill and applying it to projects offshore, renewable or non-renewable, is not going to give affordable, reliable and available energy for Canadians or create the export opportunities that an abundance of energy may give. This is a flawed approach.
One would think that the Liberals would not need the opposition to move an amendment that would seek to refer the bill back to committee where it could be studied further and amended to deal with the reality of the Supreme Court's decision on renewable energy. However, they have even made it muddier still by tabling, in the House, a budget implementation act that further confuses regulatory issues and compliance and congruity between these different acts, by tabling a bill that overlaps and attempts to do some of these things the bill before us would do.
One would think that the Liberals would hold back on the bill before us and call the BIA tonight, and it is confusing because it is numbered Bill C-69, but have that debate instead and move that bill along. I mean, I will vote against it and I hope that other members will too and so that we can bring the government down and get on with the carbon tax election. However, either way, whether the bill passes or not, surely that is a more prudent present step than forcing through Bill C-49, which has obvious constitutional and regulatory problems to it. So, if they will not do it for that reason, if they will not do it for compliance or get the order right with the BIA versus Bill C-49, at least recognize that the Supreme Court has already weighed in on the substance of the bill and found it unconstitutional. The bill belongs back at committee, or perhaps just not called at all.
The Liberals have tabled a lot of bills, and a lot of them do not go anywhere. In fact, over these last few weeks, they have tabled a number of bills that they have not called, and so I do not understand, in terms of the management of its legislative calendar, why suddenly the drive to call the bill before us.
We have seen the kind of red tape that this government has given Canadians. The Liberals have already hindered traditional and alternative energy development in Canada. Under Bill C-69, no projects get approved. It is the no-more-pipelines bill, and it is going to become the no-offshore-wind-development bill and the no-offshore-drilling bill. To top it all off, I understand from speaking to a number of Atlantic members of Parliament that they have also managed to upset the stability and the investment climate for the fishing industry, because they have not consulted those in the fishing industry who stand to be affected by the bill. This government is so consistent in its muddy, muddled approach to regulation and the creation of red tape. It is time for this government to maybe fire some gatekeepers instead of finding new ways to tie up Canadian businesses and scare away investment.
However, scaring away investment is exactly what these bills have done. Bill C-69 led to capital flight from this country. We have seen how Bill C-49, even its tabling, has also triggered capital flight from Atlantic Canada in terms of projects abandoned and the dearth of new applications for drilling or offshore projects in the wake of the bill. As my colleague for Calgary Nose Hill said earlier, Canada has become a country where political risk is driving away investment, because decision-makers, those who allocate capital, do not know from one year to the next just what this government is going to do. It piles on laws that do not stand up in court and then it is charging along here tonight by calling the bill before us and having a debate on it as if the Supreme Court decision did not happen. It happened, and it cannot be ignored. The bill was tabled before that decision, and it does not take that decision into account. It should be taken back to committee where maybe it can get sorted out, or it can just be held back and not called again.
The Liberals have so many other bills that they seem to want to get approved but have not called and have chosen instead to call Bill C-49. I would call on the government to get a hold of its legislative calendar, get a hold of its constitutional issues, and go back and fix the bill if it is going to call it again.
1194 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 11:42:04 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, for a moment, let us imagine that the member who just spoke has a magic wand. I wonder, which provision would the member change, why he would change it and how he would change it?
37 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 11:42:28 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would strip out the sections that have already been struck down in court. That might be an easy place to start. There are four of them, but I do reject the entire approach of the government to business regulation and the regulation of energy development, both renewable and non-renewable.
53 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 11:42:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Calgary Rocky Ridge understands what the oil industry did in the city of Calgary, what it could do and how it was devastated by these Liberal policies. Can he imagine what this kind of policy would stop from happening in the Atlantic region? It has possibilities, but what does he really think would happen, as he may have seen what the Liberal government did to the industry in Alberta, particularly Calgary?
76 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 11:43:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the impact was instantaneous when the government came to power. Some 200,000 energy workers across Canada, not all in Calgary, but many thousands in Calgary, including in my own riding, lost their jobs in the early months of the government. While things are much better now, the environment is still not there for investment. Money is leaving Calgary, not coming into it, from what some of the finance community has told me. I can only imagine what the bill might do to Newfoundland and Labrador and to Nova Scotia.
It is the uncertainty that is such a killer. If we do not know what the bill is going to do, nobody is going to invest in any project. Even the existing fishing industry does not know how it may or may not be affected. That leads to decisions that have to be made on capital allocation, and it will not be for Canada.
156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 11:44:47 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the important points he made about the energy sector, about the value it produces for our economy and about the failures of the government. I wonder if he can expand specifically on just what the bill would do, the additional challenges it would create and what kind of an approach we should be taking instead.
64 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 11:45:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is really all about certainty for investors. If it is going to take potentially years to get a decision, and if a full offshore development and production designated project review can take 1,600 days, people are not going to apply. The uncertainty has been there from the moment the Liberals tabled the bill. They should make a clear declaration that they are not going to proceed down this road of potential unconstitutional jurisdictional intrusion by adding more red tape. They should go with an entirely different approach and start again.
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, tonight we are talking about Bill C-49, an act to amend the Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord. I am a member of Parliament from the other end of the country, the Pacific Coast, and it is a real honour for me to be joining in the debate about something that is so important to Canada. It goes to show that Canada really is a nation from sea to sea. I am from the other ocean, but it is wonderful to be here with my colleagues who are very knowledgeable about what happens on the Atlantic Coast. Listening to the speeches tonight, I have learned a lot about that part of my country.
Bill C-49 would impose, unfortunately, many of the Liberals' failed environmental assessment initiatives that have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada for infringing on provincial jurisdiction. It was a real surprise for me, as I delved into this bill, to see that the Liberals would take the risk of incorporating a lot of the failed clauses of Bill C-69, which we call the “no more pipelines” bill, into this very important legislation about improving the economy of the Atlantic Coast, and I wonder why they would do that. The last thing that investment dollars and investment entrepreneurs want is risk. It has been pointed out before that this bill poses a political risk that is going to drive away investment. Here is a proof point that I think is really clear.
In 2022, there were five offshore land bids in Newfoundland and Labrador at a value of $238 million. If we move forward five months to May 30, 2023, about a year ago, when Bill C-49 was first introduced, which is not law yet. Business people read it and said that they did not want to take that risk, and in 2023, there were zero bids. That is just a really clear example of what happens when the government introduces legislation that does nothing more than introduce a lot of uncertainty into the mix.
If we take a look at what happened with the TMX pipeline, Kinder Morgan, which is a risk-taking company with very deep pockets. It was willing to take on the challenge of twinning the pipeline that had been in existence for 70 years with very little environmental risks involved. It started the project to twin that pipeline, which seemed like a very common-sense project to undertake, and it was, until the federal government started imposing environmental regulatory red tape that really did not do anything but slow down the project. Finally, Kinder Morgan said that it was out of there because It did not want that risk anymore. It is a business that wants to make money, and it could see that there was way too much risk there, so it pulled out. It was willing to walk away from its multibillion dollar investment at that point.
However, the Liberal federal government said that it needed that pipeline and that it could not let it go unfinished. It picked up the project for $5 billion, which was going to cost $7 billion altogether to complete it. In fact, the project is now finished, finally, but at a cost of $35 billion. The federal government is now saying it is for sale, but who is going to buy it? Certainly, not for $35 billion. That is what happens when government gets into business. It should just stay out of business and should let private enterprise do what it does best, which is to undertake projects that have a very good opportunity for earning a profit. I know “profit” is a bad word with the NDP-Liberal government, but let me assure members that private enterprise runs on profit. Profit drives innovation, competition, investment and creates wealth.
This is very important to Canada because our productivity numbers are lagging compared to our trading nations, and this has been pointed out on many occasions. It was recognized by the former Liberal minister of finance, Mr. Bill Morneau, in the book he wrote after he left government, after he was released from the Liberal Party's talking points. He said he had pointed out to the current Prime Minister that one of Canada's biggest economic challenges was its lagging productivity numbers.
Here is a nice, neat example of what exactly that means when compared to the United States. For every American worker who pumps in $100 into their economy, their Canadian counterpart, doing exactly the same kind of work, pumps $70 into Canada's GDP. We are 70% as productive as the United States. Does that mean that we do not work as hard? No, of course not. We are very hard-working and industrious people.
However, we do not have the tools, investment, creativity and tax fairness here in Canada. That is what is causing our productivity numbers to lag. That goes to the wealth of the nation. It goes to the wealth of individual people. This is what Mr. Morneau had pointed out to Mr. Trudeau on what he said were numerous occasions. He said—
866 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 11:52:42 p.m.
- Watch
Could the hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove just back up and not use the name of the Prime Minister?
The hon. member.
23 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, thank you for pointing that out.
Mr. Morneau said he had pointed out, on several occasions, to the Prime Minister that he had a focus on improving Canada's productivity. Mr. Morneau said, unfortunately, the Prime Minister was not interested in that. He was more interested in distributing wealth, rather than creating wealth.
I think that is one of the fundamental economic problems in Canada today. The person at the head, the Prime Minister, is not interested in these sorts of things. That is very evident with what we see in Bill C-49. There is no interest in talking about the things that drive our economy and that are going to improve our wealth and wealth for Atlantic Canadians.
What are the sorts of things that we can do to improve our productivity, our per capita GDP? We talked about investment already. Bill C-49, the old Bill C-69, scared investment away, and that needs to be reversed. The Conservative members are saying that we need to bring this bill back to committee. These are the sorts of things that we have to look for.
We also need to reduce red tape. That is another common-sense solution to Canada's lagging productivity. We need more innovation. We need to develop our natural resources.
I want to talk about something that is very important to my end of the country, the Pacific region, and that is liquid natural gas.
It was pointed out in earlier debates that Canada has an abundance of natural gas. That is how most western Canadians heat their homes and buildings, and it is used for a lot of our vehicles. Natural gas is much cleaner burning than coal or even oil.
The world wants it. How do we ship natural gas? We liquefy it, we put it into special containers and we ship it around the world. This is a proven technology, and Canada is ready and willing, but not able to do it because the Prime Minister has told other countries there is no business case for this. Unbelievable. He said there is no business case for liquid natural gas.
Other countries in the world, like the United States, for example, see that there is a business case. Where we dropped the ball, the Americans picked it up and they are supplying Europe with liquid natural gas, which is exactly what Canada should be doing. Our allies are asking for this kind of help. It is a perfect solution to their problems, to wean themselves off Russian natural gas, and it is a perfect opportunity for us to grow our economy and improve our productivity.
445 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 11:56:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in my remarks, I actually did not have time to talk about the important role that Canada could play in exporting our natural resources for energy.
The member touched on it a little. However, with some extra time, could he explain further about just why it is so important that Canada be a global supplier of reliable, clean and affordable energy for people throughout the world?
68 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
