Oil tanker sitting low in the water
Cost of Climate Change, Energy, Politics

Conservative Pipeline Motion defeated

On Tuesday, December 9, Tim Uppal, the Conservative MP for Edmonton Gateway (AB), moved that the House of Commons “support the construction of one or more pipelines enabling the export of at least one million barrels a day of low-emission Alberta bitumen from a strategic deep-water port on the British Columbia coast to reach Asian markets, including through an appropriate adjustment to the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, while respecting the duty to consult Indigenous peoples.” The wording, he pointed out, was taken directly from the Prime Minister’s MOU with Alberta. After a heated debate, his motion was defeated 139 to 196.

Reason for the Conservative Motion

Uppal explained that his motion was necessary because the Government’s MOU does not promise that a pipeline will be built.

“Instead, it only commits that seven months from now, a proposal will be referred to a federal office for two more years of study, while the B.C. premier will still effectively have a veto on this pipeline.”

The Conservatives were universally supportive of their proposed pipeline.

Opposition Leader Pierre Poilievre declared, “It would allow us to move $30 billion a year of Canadian energy overseas to the 2.5 billion Asian customers who would then pay world prices for it.”

Aaron Gunn, MP for North Island–Powell River (BC), compared the potential deal to the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway — ‘which many consider to be one of the great political and engineering feats of the time.’

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May pointed out that this motion was a reversal of the Conservative position in 2011, “which would have prohibited any pipeline to the northern BC coast to ship any diluted bitumen to China.”

Gunn replied, “I was 21 at the time, if I am doing the math correctly, so I am not familiar with all the ins and outs of what was or was not in the platform back in 2011. What I can tell the member is that we support a pipeline. We support getting top dollar for Canada’s number one export, expanding our trade markets, becoming less dependent on the United States, actually getting things done, following the science and the evidence, and not making political decisions that kill individual projects.”

The Climate Crisis

No Members — whether Liberal, Conservative, Bloc Québécois, NDP, or Green Party — mentioned that if built, the pipeline might not be finished for at least a decade and possibly much later. The key question being will Indigenous Nations and the provincial government come onboard. The oil would most also be likely be coming into a world market struggling to divest itself of fossil fuels.

Assuming the pipeline is built: Will there still be a strong market for oil? How stiff will the competition be?

Julie Dabrusin, Minister of the Environment, Climate Change and Nature, pointed to what was in the MOU and missing from the Conservative motion:

“There is no mention of climate, clean electricity grids, or interties between neighbouring provinces. There is no mention of the environment and no mention of a net-zero future for Canadians. In the motion, they ignore any mention of environmental policy, environmental assessment, emissions reductions, or collaboration with the Province of British Columbia. All these things were found in the MOU the Premier of Alberta signed this week with the federal government. The Conservatives have no credible policy. They have no plan on climate change.”

Mario Simard, Bloc Québécois MP from Jonquière (QC), responded, “To me, building oil and gas infrastructure is irreconcilable with protecting the environment. The desire to develop a new strategy to invent low-carbon oil is irreconcilable with the energy transition. I would like my colleague to explain how she manages to reconcile the irreconcilable.”

Minister Dabrusin: “Let me be very clear. We cannot achieve our environmental and climate change targets and objectives if we do not work with the provinces. Personally, when I look at what is in this agreement, I see that we, as the federal government, are prepared to work with the Province of Alberta to have stronger industrial carbon pricing. We are working on stronger methane regulations. We are working together on clean electricity.”

Money for American Investors

Simard was not convinced: “It is clear that our political processes are powerless before the almighty oil and gas industry, and that is the only lens through which the politics of the Canadian economy are viewed.”

While the Conservatives embraced the pipeline as a gateway to prosperity, he pointed out that most of the profit would end up in the United States.

“The four members of the Pathways Alliance, which account for 80% of oil sands production, are Canadian Natural Resources, Cenovus Energy, Imperial Oil, and Suncor. They represent 80% of the real force behind the oil sector, and they are 73% foreign-owned and 60% American-owned. The oil lobby wants to energize the Canadian economy, but it is doing so to serve American interests.”

Simard went on to point out that 60% of all dividends paid by the oil sector between 2021 and 2024 went to the United States.

Whose record is worse?

The Conservatives were not deterred.

They were suspicious of the Liberal motives for signing the MOU. Uppal pointed out that some Liberal MPs were insisting the pipeline must have the Premier of British Columbia’s consent. He proceeded to berate the Liberals for driving $500 billion of investments from Canada during the past decade.

“That is money that could have gone to jobs, wages, and opportunities for Canadian families.”

Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal MP for Winnipeg North (MB), reminded the House that the Conservatives had ‘built zero inches of pipeline to tidewater’ during their years in power (2006–19).

Stipulations in the MOU

Tim Hodgson, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, claimed the Conservative motion “cherry-picks one outcome and ignores the framework that would make that outcome possible.”

The most controversial part of this was the duty to consult.

Hodgson stressed, “Many Indigenous communities want to be owners and investors in major projects, not spectators. In fact, we have already heard from treaty nations interested in possible co-ownership, a desire completely left out of the Conservative motion. Legitimacy also means working with British Columbia in good faith. It requires serious engagement with the province, coastal communities, and Indigenous peoples whose lands and waters would be affected.”

Ned Kuruc, Conservative MP for Hamilton East–Stoney Creek – Yorkton—Melville (ON), said, “The MOU must have BC support, and Premier Eby has been extremely vocal that he would not support it. Not only that, but the Liberals are also keeping the tanker ban in place. The tanker ban, passed by Justin Trudeau in 2019, would make the pipeline bringing LNG to B.C. completely pointless. It would be like building a pipeline to nowhere. We would have no way of getting the oil off the west coast and into foreign markets.”

A number of MPs, from the Bloc and Conservative Party, pointed out that Carney had not consulted with BC or its Indigenous leaders before signing the MOU with Alberta.

Brad Vis, Conservative MP for Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford (BC), claimed that British Columbians love their rainforests and also want the prosperity the pipeline would bring.

To which Patrick Bonin, Bloc Québécois MP from Repentigny (QC), responded that Premier Eby was clearly not happy about the deal and the Assembly of First Nations of Canada unanimously opposed the proposed lifting of the tanker ban.

Corey Hogan, Liberal MP for Calgary Confederation (AB), declared, “The Conservatives should know very well the risks of plowing ahead thoughtlessly when it comes to pipelines. In 2016, the Federal Court of Appeal deemed the phase four consultations undertaken by the Harper government on the Northern Gateway pipeline, a pipeline project I worked on, insufficient. It said, ‘Canada fell short of the mark.’”

The Trans Mountain Pipeline

Billy Morin, an Indigenous leader and Conservative MP for Edmonton Northwest (AB), described the Liberal commitment to consult with First Nations as ‘more games and exploitation.’ He believes the Conservative Party can get the job done and that First Nations will support them. Morin stated that 111 of the 129 affected First Nations supported the Trans Mountain pipeline.

Hodgson pointed out that Conservatives do not often mention the Trans Mountain pipeline (TMX), because it shows Liberals can and did actually build pipelines.

Simard pointed out that the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion cost taxpayers $34 billion.

“The Parliamentary Budget Officer has said in numerous analyses that this infrastructure is not profitable. It would have to operate at full capacity over the next 40 years just to break even.”

He added that the Government will not find private companies willing to build the proposed pipeline because it is not profitable.

To which Uppal responded, “The reason it was not profitable was that it was under the Liberal government.”

Uppal alleged they brought in too many regulations.

Minister Hodgson countered, “One very important thing we can learn from the TMX is the importance of having a private proponent. There is significant work needed to be done with Alberta to attract that proponent, and that work is being done. We will not let the federal Conservatives pretend that an opposition day motion can substitute for a real project proposal, real financing, and a real review.”

He added that “an adjustment to the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act will only be considered if necessary and only in the context of an approved project.”

What is wrong with Canadian politics

Simard described, “The agreement between Alberta and the federal government is a perfect example of what I believe is wrong with Canadian politics, and frankly, today’s debate is only contributing to that. It is clear that our political processes are powerless before the almighty oil and gas industry, and that is the only lens through which the politics of the Canadian economy are viewed.”

Bonin described the proposed pipeline as a climate betrayal:

“In the oil and gas sector, the oil sands currently emit more greenhouse gases than all of Quebec. These emissions have risen nearly 500% since 1990. A new pipeline is obviously going to increase production and increase emissions. This is very clear.”

As for the proposed implementation of carbon capture and storage technology:

“The technology is still unproven. It has not been deployed at scale. It is still experimental, and it is extremely expensive. It will require billions of dollars of public funds. Canada is, of course, ready and willing to chip in 50% of those costs for the oil and gas companies.”

Links of Interest:

Top image credit: Oil tanker – by Hans m via Flickr (Public Domain)

Sign-up for Cortes Currents email-out:

To receive an emailed catalogue of articles on Cortes Currents, send a (blank) email to subscribe to your desired frequency: