Listen to this article
Estimated 5 minutes
The audio version of this article is generated by text-to-speech, a technology based on artificial intelligence.
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre says his party’s upcoming motion — which borrows language from the new Canada-Alberta energy agreement — is meant to force the Liberals to “put up or shut up” on whether they support a new oil pipeline to the Pacific coast.
“The only thing that needs to happen for the project to go ahead is for the federal government of Mark Carney to get out of the way. Grant a permit and let the construction begin,” Poilievre said in an interview with CBC News on Sunday afternoon.
On Tuesday, the Conservatives will put forward a non-binding motion that will require Liberal MPs to decide whether they support “the construction of one or more pipelines” that can export at least one million barrels a day of Alberta bitumen from a B.C. port to Asian markets.
The motion also mentions “an appropriate adjustment to the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, while respecting the duty to consult Indigenous Peoples.”
The wording of the motion is similar to the federal government’s energy agreement with Alberta that was signed in late November, but it omits the conditions Alberta agreed to in exchange for Ottawa’s support, like strengthening its industrial carbon pricing system.
After signing a memorandum of understanding with the Carney government, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith called the agreement ‘Alberta’s moment of opportunity’ to advance Canada’s position as an energy superpower.
Poilievre said if every Liberal supports his party’s motion, then “maybe we can get some shovels in the ground.” But if there are detractors, it would mean “there is no commitment” by the Liberal government to actually get a pipeline going.
After the agreement was signed, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith said it was “a really great day for the people of Alberta and all of Canada.”
When asked whether he feels betrayed by Smith signing on to the agreement, Poilievre said: “No. We want a pipeline to the Pacific. Let’s get it built.”
A spokesperson for Liberal House leader Steve MacKinnon told CBC News on Sunday morning there’s “nothing to say on that now,” when asked whether a decision has been made on how Liberal MPs will vote on the Conservative motion.
David Coletto, CEO of polling firm Abacus Data, said there are many Liberal MPs who represent regions, such as B.C. and Quebec, that would be affected by a new pipeline or opposed to the idea — which makes the vote tricky for them.
“Regionally, [the motion] puts some members of Parliament in a difficult position. It doesn’t mean they will lose the next election because of this, but it certainly might challenge their own values and those of the people they represent,” Coletto said.
Guilbeault doubts Alberta will hold up its end of deal
In an interview on Rosemary Barton Live that aired Sunday morning, former cabinet minister Steven Guilbeault said he doubts that Smith will make good on Alberta’s environmental commitments in the energy agreement.
On Thursday, the Alberta government announced changes to its industrial pricing system, which environmental advocates fear will actually lower the price on carbon.
Chief political correspondent Rosemary Barton speaks with Quebec Liberal MP Steven Guilbeault, who resigned from Prime Minister Mark Carney’s cabinet last week, about his party’s deal with Alberta for a potential pipeline to the west coast of B.C., and why he thinks the federal government is stoking Quebec separatism by walking back its climate commitments.
“I sincerely doubt that Premier Smith has any intention of making good on those commitments, and yesterday’s example is one [that] screams volumes about her real intentions,” Guilbeault said.
But Alberta’s Environment Minister Rebecca Schulz defended the changes to the industrial pricing system, saying that they were announced months prior to the province’s agreement with the federal government.
“These targeted updates make the … system stronger and more effective. We’re encouraging businesses to put dollars into cutting-edge technology and make site upgrades now, not later. This will lead to more emissions being reduced and a stronger system,” Schulz said in an emailed statement.
On Saturday afternoon, Environment Minister Julie Dabrusin said on social media that Alberta committed to “raising its effective carbon credit price sixfold,” as well as other climate measures to meet a shared goal of net-zero emissions by 2050.
“As we enter negotiations with Alberta, that remains our expectation,” Dabrusin said. “We will not support measures that undermine Canada and Alberta’s climate objectives.”
First Nations chiefs demand withdrawal of pipeline deal
The prime minister is also facing pressure from First Nations leaders over his Alberta agreement. On Tuesday, the Assembly of First Nations chiefs voted unanimously to demand the withdrawal of the deal.
“A pipeline to B.C.’s coast is nothing but a pipe dream,” said Chief Donald Edgars of Old Massett Village Council in Haida Gwaii, who moved an emergency resolution affirming support for the oil tanker ban in northern B.C. waters.
The resolution also urges Canada, Alberta and B.C. to recognize the climate emergency and uphold the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Prime Minister Mark Carney promised leaders at the Assembly of First Nations annual gathering that his government would partner with them on a potential pipeline to the West Coast, shortly after the chiefs voted unanimously to demand Ottawa withdraw from its new pipeline agreement with Alberta.
But Stephen Buffalo, president and CEO of the Indian Resource Council, said in an interview on Rosemary Barton Live there’s a balance between protecting the environment and “getting some economic development opportunities.”
“I think there’s a good path forward to this if we can sit down and talk,” Buffalo said.
When asked whether he feels First Nations people are getting in the way of a new oil pipeline, Poilievre said “no,” and that there needs to be consultation.
“But if Mark Carney actually wanted to get anything built, he would have begun those consultations in May, the month after the election,” Poilievre said.
