Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House once again to debate these important issues with my colleagues, particularly the member for Chilliwack—Hope, natural resources critic for the official opposition.

However, I am surprised by the position of the member opposite. After all, we are acting, doing more in one year than the previous government did in a decade: protecting our oceans, pricing carbon pollution, and putting middle-class Canadians back to work by approving the pipelines we need to reach those new markets.

In November of last year, we announced our government's balanced approach to new pipelines. We approved the Trans Mountain expansion and Line 3 replacement pipelines, creating thousands of jobs, with almost 200 binding conditions to protect the environment.

We rejected the northern gateway project, and we announced a moratorium on crude oil tanker traffic along the northwest coast of B.C., and took action to protect our oceans. Our decisions were based on science, extensive consultations with Indigenous communities, and the best interests of Canadians. Decisions that balanced strong environmental protection will create thousands of good paying jobs and will help get our resources to market.

However, since our announcement, the official opposition has been erratic with its response. For example, compare what the member opposite has said to what his leader said after we announced our pipeline decisions. The response of the leader of the official opposition? She said that she did not feel optimistic. Why?

The first reason she gave was the 157 binding conditions attached to the approval of the Trans Mountain expansion, conditions designed to, among other things, ensure we protected our environment. She did not explain her cause for pessimism. Perhaps she does not support protecting the environment and our coastlines, or perhaps the party opposite thinks 157 conditions to protect the environment is too onerous for a pipeline operator.

Whatever the concern, it just does not square with the fact that the previous government imposed 202 conditions on the northern gateway project. The only members in this House who are not opposed to the northern gateway project are those seated immediately around the member for Chilliwack—Hope. Those members had their chance to build pipelines to tidewater but simply could not get it done.

The Federal Court of Appeal ruled against the northern gateway project because it found the previous government, his government, failed in its responsibility, in its duty, to consult Indigenous communities on the project.

As we have said time and time again, the Great Bear Rainforest is no place for a pipeline, and the Douglas Channel is no place for crude oil tankers. Those environmental concerns were central to our decisions, as were the findings of the ministerial panel report, the views of Indigenous communities and those of other Canadians.

Our government concluded the project was likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects that could not be justified. It was a good decision, a well-reasoned decision, and the right decision.

Kim Rudd

Transcript

Adjournment Proceedings

Discussions (0)