Bill C-48 (Historical)

Oil Tanker Moratorium Act

An Act respecting the regulation of vessels that transport crude oil or persistent oil to or from ports or marine installations located along British Columbia's north coast

This enactment enacts the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, which prohibits oil tankers that are carrying more than 12 500 metric tons of crude oil or persistent oil as cargo from stopping, or unloading crude oil or persistent oil, at ports or marine installations located along British Columbia’s north coast from the northern tip of Vancouver Island to the Alaska border. The Act prohibits loading if it would result in the oil tanker carrying more than 12 500 metric tons of those oils as cargo.
The Act also prohibits vessels and persons from transporting crude oil or persistent oil between oil tankers and those ports or marine installations for the purpose of aiding the oil tanker to circumvent the prohibitions on oil tankers.
Finally, the Act establishes an administration and enforcement regime that includes requirements to provide information and to follow directions and that provides for penalties of up to a maximum of five million dollars.

Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North overlooks the fact that this government has not repealed Bill C-48, which ensures no pipeline will get built to the B.C. coast. He overlooks that this government has still not repealed Bill C-69, the no new pipelines bill. This government has still not repealed the oil and gas production cap. Who is going to invest in this country when we cannot get our oil to market, and when the government is punishing the oil and gas industries with a carbon tax that does not apply to similar industries in other countries?

The Major Projects Office is like everything else the Liberals offer: It is an illusion.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak about the spring economic update, or as I call it, the spring deficit update. The Liberals, on their introduction of the bill, put out a good 250-page program called “Canada Strong for All.” I think it should be “Canada Deficits for All.” It reminds me of a famous Internet meme from Toy Story of Woody and Buzz Lightyear, where Buzz is pointing out saying, “as far as the eye can see.” That is what this economic update is. It is deficits as far as the eye can see.

Do members remember, not too long ago, in the Trudeau days, when Trudeau said that balanced budgets from the Liberal government was a commitment set in stone? He said it was “very” cast in stone. Now, 75% of the current Liberal bench, and about half the cabinet, is made up of people who were here under the Trudeau government, yet somehow this cast-in-stone commitment to balance the budget has disappeared.

Instead of a balanced budget, what do we get? We get deficits as far as the eye can see. It was $67 billion last year, which is well up from the worst of the Trudeau days; $65 billion this year; $63 billion next year; $58 billion in 2028; a $56-billion deficit in 2029; and $53 billion in 2030. That is $362 billion of added debt in just over six years.

Do members remember the government's saying it was going to spend less and invest more? Over the same period, this spending less is going to get us $406 billion in interest on the Liberal debt. There is money for bankers, with $406 billion for banker friends of the Prime Minister, not for Canadians, not for more doctors, not for more nurses, not for more schools or hospitals, not for lower taxes, heaven forbid, and not for defence or more infrastructure. That is $406 billion over a six-year period for the Liberal debt.

Do members remember, which was repeated ad nauseam by the government, by the ministers, that they were going to cut spending? Again, they said that they were going to spend less so they could invest more.

The President of the Treasury Board was at the operations committee yesterday, the mighty OGGO. I have to mention that. He stated that there was $60 billion less in spending, but what does the spring deficit update actually bring us? It brings more spending and program spending that actually outpaces the rate of inflation over the next six years. Somehow spend less equals more program spending. This is from the Liberals' own documents.

What about the public service? The government says it is going to cut 35,000 jobs, yet the Parliamentary Budget Officer has put out a report noting that spending on the public service is actually increasing 6%; from $71 billion, it is going up to $76 billion. In committee, we asked about this, and the Treasury Board told us that it is not actually reducing public servants or spending but just re-profiling, shifting things around.

What does all this extra spending get us? For 10 years, the government has been excusing its deficits by saying that spending is needed because it is going to add growth, is going to do this and is going to do that. What did we get? It is not a lot of growth, with a 1.7% average growth over the next six years. An added deficit of $362 billion equals 1.7% growth.

What is interesting is that the Bank of Canada put out its monetary policy report at about the same time that the spring deficit update came out from the government, and the Bank of Canada's number for growth is 16% lower in 2027 than what the government is saying, with a 10% lower prediction in GDP growth the following year.

How is it that the Bank of Canada has different numbers than the government does? We actually asked and were told that the Bank of Canada is using proper numbers. Who has the real numbers? How much higher is the deficit going to be if we are to believe the Bank of Canada over the government? It is about an extra $2 billion to $3 billion of deficit added per year.

That is certainly not adding to any productivity or growth. According to the Bank of Canada report on the contributions to real GDP growth over the coming years, in 2026, the year we are in now, the vast majority of growth in our GDP is government spending. Almost as much growth is from consumption. It is not from added exports, and it is not from growth in productivity. I think GDP growth is 1.2% this year, and almost all of it is government spending.

In 2027, 44% of the GDP growth that we are going to see in this country, according to the Bank of Canada, will not be from pipelines, from building more cars, from more industry or from more exports. It will be from government spending. In 2028, 27% of the projected growth, according to the Bank of Canada, is going to be government spending.

What should we do to increase growth? It is simple: Unleash our oil and gas industry. We can start by repealing Bill C-48, which bans tankers off British Columbia's north coast and stops Alberta oil from being exported. We could get rid of Bill C-69, the “no new pipelines” bill. We could end the destructive oil production cap that the government still has not repealed. We could actually get to building pipelines and increasing revenue and wealth for this country.

We saw a note from a very famous economist, Ms. Exner-Pirot. She stated that just in the two months of the war in Iran and the issues with the Strait of Hormuz, if we had built the northern gateway pipeline, we would be looking at an extra $3 billion in revenue for this country, just from the added oil from the last two months. The government is running a massive deficit. Instead, we could actually be making more.

I am going to talk about northern gateway and the lost revenue caused by the government when it cancelled the project. The government has still not set up the regulatory regime to allow a pipeline to the coast. Total government revenue between 2019 and 2048, if we had built northern gateway, would be $131.5 billion: $72 billion for the federal government and about $59 billion for the provincial governments. On an annual basis, in revenue by region, provinces will have lost out on $2.1 billion per year because the Liberal government cancelled the northern gateway project, with $1.7 billion lost for the federal government.

With respect to jobs, we just heard the member for Winnipeg North go on and on about, in the spring deficit update, money for trades. We do not have a lot of trades jobs available in Canada right now. It is wonderful that there is finally, after 10 years, recognition by the Liberal government that the people who build things have value, but where are the jobs going to be for them? The jobs could have been in helping build northern gateway. For that period, 773,000 jobs, on an FTE basis, are lost because the government threw up barriers and cancelled northern gateway.

The government will say that we need to have a carbon tax in order to sell our oil. We saw the president of Cenovus today state quite bluntly that we would be the only country in the world handicapping our oil and gas industry in such a way. He states that under Liberal policies, the government is producing high-paying jobs in Saudi Arabia, Russia and America instead of here in Canada. Canada's oil production is the most ethical, and we have an industry that is providing more jobs for indigenous people and more wealth than any other industry in Canada, but the government is trying to wreck it.

The government needs to get out of the way and recognize that the oil and gas industry has produced wealth for this country and for the world. It needs to get out of the way to allow us to build, and it needs to stop its inflationary practices and stop destroying this country with its deficit spending.

Motions in Amendment

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

moved:

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting the short title.

Mr. Speaker, before I get to my comments, I would like to draw members' attention to Cancer Awareness Month in honour of my younger sister, my mother and all those fighting this horrible disease; and the support teams who help out those who are trying to fight cancer.

We are talking today about the government trying to create a new position of treaty commissioner. The rationale is that somehow this would give accountability to the government's implementing and honouring the modern-day treaties that have been signed, mainly in B.C. They were negotiated in B.C. for the last 30 or 40 years. I have the honour of having one treaty in my riding, the Nisg̱a'a Treaty. The treaty is 20 years old and yet the people still cannot get the federal government to co-operate as a treaty partner as outlined in the treaty itself.

I also have in my riding two first nations that are up for ratification, the Kitselas First Nation and Kitsumkalum. They are going through the ratification stage right now in B.C. However, they are going to face the same problems that Nisg̱a'a, Tsawwassen, Maa-nulth and other first nations are experiencing right now with modern-day treaties, in that they cannot get Canada to participate in a modern-day treaty in partnership with Canada.

The current Liberal government wants the world to think that if it creates a treaty commissioner there will be accountability and Canada would then get to the table and co-operate with these first nations that have signed modern-day treaties. However, what government members will forget to tell them is that this issue is 20 years old. It comes back annually. There have been endless reports, even to the point where the Government of Canada created a document called the “Cabinet Directive on the Federal Approach to Modern Treaty Implementation”. It has headings: “Roles and Responsibilities...Deputy Ministers' Oversight Committee...Modern Treaty Implementation Office [and] Evaluation of the Directive”.

On top of that is the expected rhetoric that the government will “ensure that they are aware of, understand, and fulfill their departments' obligations pursuant to all modern treaties in effect.” It sounds good, except it does not do it. The treaty itself is supposed to be a document that says Canada, B.C. and a first nation shall work together in key areas. A first nation gives up its asserted rights and title and comes into a constitutionally protected document agreement in good faith, in the spirit that the first nation that signs the treaty will walk beside Canada and B.C. and help build Canada together.

The first nations are there. They want to implement and they want to build, not just for their own first nation but for Canada overall, but Canada is missing. In fact, the document, “Cabinet Directive on the Federal Approach to Modern Treaty Implementation”, came from another document, “Canada's Collaborative Modern Treaty Implementation Policy”. This has more headings than the first document I named. It goes on at length ad nauseam in terms of how Canada this year will commit to implementing the treaties that it signed with first nations. It has the regular rhetoric: “Message from the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations...Purpose...Context...Interpretation and application of this policy...Principles guiding the timely, effective and full implementation of modern treaties...Advancing objectives of modern treaties...[and] Direction to public servants”.

That means that every single ministry under the federal government that is tasked with working with its counterparts in treaty first nations has been directed to do a job.

There are headings on legislative, policy and program design considerations; monitoring, evaluation and review; and commitments to further work on essential components of the policy. Then there are the annexes. One is intergovernmental relationships, with the intergovernmental leaders' forum and the intergovernmental policy circle. The next is accountability and oversight.

All these documents and all these announcements that have come up year after year over the past 30 years are simply to state one thing: Canada is not living up to the obligations that it signed on to with the modern day treaties. Is it any wonder that the first nations will take anything that shows accountability to the first nations that have already signed them?

There are already mechanisms in the House that speak to the accountability. There are already entities outside the House that speak to the accountability that should be there but is not. There is the Auditor General's report on whether or not the government is living up to its commitments and obligations under the treaty. In B.C., we have the BC Treaty Commission, “the keeper of the process”, as it is referred to.

There is also every single department under the federal government that is supposed to be held accountable and should be sending reports to the government and to cabinet on why they are or are not living up to these commitments. We have logged, cut down, a massive amount of forest to produce all the paperwork simply to say we want to work with first nations that have signed a treaty, that have given up their aboriginal rights and title.

The biggest example that comes to mind is the Nisg̱a'a, in my territory. They wanted to be respected as a treaty partner. They take pride in their treaty. Not only is it a form of independence they are still working on, but they also thought they would be walking side by side with the federal and provincial governments. That is not so, according to the Nisg̱a'a.

On Bill C-48, the tanker ban, the Nisg̱a'a urged the government that the moratorium, the tanker ban, must not be introduced before the implications for their nation and their treaty were well understood. More important, they said that the moratorium should not cover Nisg̱a'a treaty territory. The Nisg̱a'a, to be clear, were not supporting a tanker ban. They were not for it. They were not against it. They just felt that they were owed the duty of a higher level of consultation when Canada was proposing it. They did not get it.

This brings me back to the days of the B.C. legislature. I warned the B.C. legislature not to play games with aboriginal issues, whether we were talking about case law or UNDRIP, and now B.C. is chaos. I give the same warning to the House. We should not play games with aboriginal issues, or else the chaos and the confusion are going to get built on, in terms of what we are seeing in B.C. right now.

Opposition Motion—Fuel Taxes

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

moved:

That, given that,

(i) gas prices have soared upwards,

(ii) Canadians now pay almost 20 per cent more at the pumps than Americans due to high Liberal taxes,

the House call on the government to adopt the Conservative plan to save Canadians 25 cents-a-litre by removing federal taxes on gas and diesel for the rest of 2026, including:

(a) removing the Fuel Excise Tax for the remainder of 2026, which costs Canadians 10 cents-a-litre;

(b) removing the GST on gasoline and diesel for the remainder of 2026, which costs Canadians 8 cents-a-litre;

(c) permanently removing the Fuel Standards tax, which costs Canadians 7 cents-a-litre; and

(d) permanently removing the industrial carbon tax, which will rise to $170 a tonne, and is projected to shrink the economy by 1.3 per cent and lead to 50,000 job losses.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to be splitting my time with the member for York—Durham.

The great Winston Churchill once said, “The idea that a nation can tax itself into prosperity is one of the crudest delusions which has ever fuddled the human mind.” After more than 10 years of the Liberal government, life has become miserable for Canadians, more unaffordable and unsafe than ever in the history of this country. Families are struggling just to get by, and they cannot afford even the basic necessities. They are just looking for a break.

Recently, the Liberal Prime Minister said that he is trying to find ways to save on gas. Well, we presented an idea. We put the solution in front of him: Remove all federal fuel taxes temporarily for Canadians, to save them money at the pump. From what I understand, the Prime Minister did what a typical Liberal would do and just recently took our idea, but he did not take the whole idea. He took only parts of the idea. Our goal was to save on the GST, the excise tax and, of course, the Liberals' hidden carbon tax repackaged as the clean fuel standard, which will go up. This would have saved Canadians 25¢ per litre at the pump.

We have to look at what is going on right now. Of course there are external factors that all countries are facing. Everyone is facing those same factors, but we have to look at why Canadians are paying, at a minimum, 20¢ per litre more than Americans are for fuel. The difference is the federal fuel taxes, so we put this solution in front of the Liberals, but, again, they did not implement it fully. Canadians would have saved 25¢ per litre for gas at the pump. Not just everyday Canadians would save money. It would help our farmers. It would help our transporters. It would help in many different ways.

It could also help bring down the cost of food. We know that after 10 years under the Liberals, Canadians are faced with the highest food inflation in the entire G7. Canadians have the highest household debt in the entire G7. We know that Canadians are struggling, because 2.2 million Canadians going to a food bank every single month is not a statistic that anyone should brag about. The cost of food is out of control in this country, and the solutions Conservatives are proposing would help to lower the cost of food and of everyday life for Canadians. Overall, they would also save Canadians $1,200 on gas just this year. That is a significant savings.

Even when people go to the grocery store, they can feel the difference when they are there. Not that long ago, people could get by for a week on 100 dollars' worth of groceries. One hundred dollars gets them nowhere these days under the Liberals, because they made the cost of food so expensive. Their industrial carbon tax, their clean fuel standard, which they refuse to drop, is making life more expensive. It makes food more expensive. That is why there is so much food insecurity.

In my riding of Calgary East, the Salvation Army does amazing work. It just reported a 500% increase in the usage of its food security program. That 500% increase is because the cost of food keeps going up. These are not numbers or statistics about which anyone should say, “Is that really a first world country where 2.2 million Canadians are going to a food bank every single month?”

Canadians are overtaxed. In fact, Canadians pay more in taxes than they do for food, shelter and clothing, in other words necessities, combined. That is the result of overspending, overprinting money and flooding the market with cheap cash. Who benefits from that? It is always Liberal insiders. For example, there is the $90-billion boondoggle called the Alto high-speed rail project. The finance minister has a supposed conflict of interest in that too, and it would be wealthy Liberal insiders who would get contracts and money from those contracts. They are the only ones who would get rewarded. Who gets left with the bill? It is Canadians. Everyday Canadians have to face the reality of the corrupt Liberal government.

The clean fuel standard is also a tax on everything. As I said before, the farmers who are growing our food, the shippers who are transporting our food, and even the people who are storing the food all get hit with either the clean fuel standard or the industrial carbon tax, or both. Sometimes this is in hidden ways, but these costs do not stay just with the farmers and the shippers. They actually get put into the cost of the food at the end of the day. Canadians who are buying the food and are seeing food costs out of control are the ones who have to pay these costs, and it is always Liberal insiders who get to benefit from these costs.

The Liberals do not have any control over what they are doing with Canadians' finances. In fact we thought Justin Trudeau was Canada's worst money manager, but the Prime Minister said, “Hold my champagne. I can do much worse.” He doubled Justin Trudeau's deficit, if we can believe that. It is something we thought no one could do. It was item number one once he became Prime Minister.

Removing the GST, the excise tax and the carbon tax 2.0, the clean fuel standard, would help the truckers and the farmers. It would help the cost of food go down. That is why Conservatives are proposing this: We know that Canadians are struggling with the cost of food. We all hear it in our ridings from moms who have to choose between less nutritious food or no food that week. Some of them are starving, just so their kids can eat. These are the choices Canadians are having to make. Seniors are having to make these choices too. There are people in food bank lines who had never used a food bank in their life. They used to proudly volunteer at the food banks, and now they are standing in line for food.

That is the result of the Liberal government. It is increasing costs, and there is no looking back for the Liberals. They will increase the industrial carbon tax and will increase the clean fuel standard, and this is only going to make things more expensive for Canadians.

The Liberals will argue that it might leave a hole in their budget. We are surprised that they would even care about that, with all the money they print and spend. However, if we implemented the removal of the fuel taxes federally, there would be more savings for Canadians and less of a downfall in how much the government would collect in revenues. This would be a win-win for everybody. Most importantly, it would be a win for those families that are struggling after 10 years of Liberal government.

We need to get our economy up and running again. We need to make Canada what it used to be, a safe and affordable country, which after 10 years under Liberal governments it has not been. It has become a joke around the world. We need to get our resources to market. We need to get rid of the industrial carbon tax and remove Bill C-69 so we can get projects built in this country.

We need to remove Bill C-48, the tanker ban, which does not let our product leave the west coast for Asian markets. We need to get rid of the clean fuel standard and every single one of the red tape policies that have stopped anything from getting built in this country. We need to get our country back on track so we can be sovereign, independent and an energy superpower once again. That is something only the Conservatives would do.

Government Business No. 6—Proceedings on Bill C-9

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to speak in this incredible House on behalf of the good people of Calgary Midnapore. I cannot believe that this spring it is nine years that I have been in this chamber. I want to thank you so much for your support, Mr. Speaker, as I began this journey so long ago.

I have to say that it has been several years of wonder being here every day and not being able to believe that I am in this great House where so many incredible people have come before me. I am surrounded by outstanding individuals, and I am so excited about the future parliamentarians who will come after me.

However, within that time, as well as wonder, there has been some disappointment. Here today is a piece of that disappointment, because we are discussing closure. Closure is always disturbing and disappointing because it means that my voice is being silenced in speaking on behalf of the citizens of Calgary Midnapore. It also means that there are other members in the House who will not have the opportunity to speak on behalf of their constituents.

I have had many citizens reach out to me on Bill C-9 with their most grave concerns. It is quite sad that these expressions will not get the opportunity to come to light and to be expressed fully in the House. Unfortunately, this is a trend with the current government.

Another trend that I see with the government is that it can never seem to present a good piece of legislation without a poison pill.

The crux of Bill C-9 is that we are talking about obstructing access to religious institutions. Who could be opposed to the safety, welfare and well-being of those who want to practise their religious freedom at this time? There is a 67% increase in crimes targeting religion in 2023 compared to 2022. In 2024, 1,342 police-reported incidents were motivated by religion, which included 900 incidents against the Jewish population and 211 incidents against the Muslim population, and over 100 Christian churches have been burned or vandalized since 2021.

Bill C-9 was a piece of legislation that we could support and get behind, but the Liberal government did what it does. It played politics. It put in the poison pill of removing religious defence from the Criminal Code. Why would the Liberals do that? Why would they remove freedom of expression of the most deepest and dearest sentiments of humans in existence?

They would do it for politics. They do not want this bill to pass unanimously. They do not want to see us working with them for Canadians and for the common good of Canada. This is a farce, and it does not elude them. It was planned intentionally for their hopeful political gain. They cannot put forward good legislation for the purpose of us all supporting good legislation. There must always be a poison pill.

My grandfather was from Bucha, Ukraine, which is where they found the mass graves. Ukrainian heritage has been a key part of my life since I was a little girl, whether my mum was making pedaheh and kubasa, or we were admiring the paska at family weddings in the beautiful shape of doves.

War came to Ukraine with tragedy and sadness. After contributing to Putin's war effort in supplying the turbine to export oil, the Liberal government had the good idea of a trade agreement, which was wonderful. It was an opportunity to show our support in the most tangible way possible: the economy. As Conservatives, we became excited at the prospect of supporting the bill. All of us would be working together for peace and democracy against one of the greatest dictators of our time. However, the Liberals placed a carbon tax in the bill, which their own government claimed to reverse, at least in principle, but at the time it was another poison pill. It was another measure deliberately placed by the Liberal government to give us, the Conservative Party of Canada, hesitation in supporting the legislation.

Again, the Liberals say they want us to work together. They claim we are obstructionist, but it is always deliberate and by their design, as I am explaining. They can never just present legislation that is good in its entirety for Canadians. They always have to have a poison pill because they want to play politics and they want to divide.

The Building Canada Act provides powers to get major projects approved in Canada, but it does not repeal Bill C-69 or Bill C-48, which would make it palatable to investors. That would have made it even easier for us as Conservatives to support it, even though we did. We gave them every opportunity to create prosperity in this great nation. In Bill C-8, they say they want to protect Canadians from cyber-threats, but their legislation would ultimately give the government the power to secretly cancel Canadians' Internet accounts. Again, they claim they are doing good, but there is always that poison pill.

In Bill C-2, they tried to give Canada Post sweeping powers to open any piece of mail, any piece of mail in the land, an incredible invasion of privacy, an incredible invasion of communicator to receiver. They tried to do this and to ban cash payments of over $10,000. It is cash, a way in which business has been done in this nation, a way in which commerce has been conducted, for forever. Conservatives forced the government into splitting the bill into two pieces to take out the poison pills.

It is these games that hurt Canadians, in delayed legislation, in amendments, in going back and forth to committees, in discussing these things and, therefore, in delayed outcomes for Canadians on things that would improve, fundamentally, the lives of Canadians. It is all a result of putting these poison pills in pieces of legislation. They really do not want us coming together for the good of Canadians. They want to divide and Bill C-9 is just another example of this. It is intentional.

It is never about 95% of the bill. There are always the good clauses, the positive clauses. We can point to good things being done for Canadians. Rather, it is always about that 5%, that one little hitch, that little poison pill that we simply cannot pass. It is like we are eating a hot dog, and then, all of a sudden, we hit that hard piece, and it just ruins the hot dog, or we are eating an olive and, all of a sudden, we hit that little piece of pit, which just ruins the experience, the item, in its entirety. Most of it is good. It was a really good hot dog or a really good olive. It is that small piece that ruins the item in its entirety. It is the same with Liberal legislation.

Liberals say it is for the good of Canadians. They say they want us to work together. It is not true. There is always, with the Liberal government, a poison pill. We see this as well within Bill C-9. We can support Canadians being safe in their places of worship. We want Canadians to be free to go to their places of worship, to be able to worship who they want, how they want and when they want. We absolutely support that within Bill C-9.

We cannot support the criminalization of merely offensive speech. We cannot leave up for interpretation what is motivated by hatred. We cannot condemn Canadians for speaking their utmost and sacred truths. Apparently, we, the elected representatives, can be silenced for attempting to stand up for and defend those who agree with us in these sentiments. That is shameful.

Iran and the Middle East

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, when the world faces upheaval, when war breaks out, and when energy and food supplies are interrupted, we must zero in on what matters most at home and on what we control. We work for Canada and its people. Here is our home. We want this country to be affordable at home, safe at home, and strong at home, so that we can be unbreakable abroad. Put in more academic terms, we must put Canada's national interests first and foremost as we look at this war, what it means and where we stand.

We are working for Canada and for Canadians here at home, because we want a Canada that is affordable, safe and strong, at home. This is how we are going to become masters of our own destiny, capable of defending our interests and values internationally.

That principle should guide us in the present war in the Middle East, so let us start with the regime itself. This is the most prolific terrorist regime in the world, a regime that routinely murders, harasses and intimidates Canadians. The regime killed 55 Canadian citizens and 30 permanent residents when it fired an unprovoked missile at a passenger plane PS752, for which there has been no subsequent justice by the regime.

Further, let me chronicle the unprovoked aggressions this regime has taken against our country. In 2023, a year-long Global News investigation found that there are “700 regime [backed agents] operating on Canadian soil [for the purposes of intimidating] and threatening” dissidents who fled the regime. Victims' families and Canadians protesting the regime have reported harassment and surveillance on Canadian soil, according to the RCMP, which has received numerous “reports of foreign interference by...the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

In 2024, two Canadians were indicted in the U.S. for their role in an alleged murder-for-hire plot on behalf of Iranian intelligence. In 2024, agents of Iran attempted to assassinate former Canadian justice minister Irwin Cotler. According to a CSIS report in 2024, “the regime is one of the main perpetrators of foreign interference and espionage” in Canada. “CSIS assesses that Iran will continue to use proxies, such as individuals involved in transnational crime networks” when its perceived enemies are active in other countries.

According to CSIS, “as of late 2023, Iran-aligned cyber actors [such as the IRGC-linked CyberAv3ngers] have been targeting Western critical infrastructure... including [and this is important] healthcare and public health, government, information technology, engineering... sectors.” In other words, they have been attempting to mess with our technological capability to deliver health care to our people through foreign attacks on our cyber networks.

The Hogue Commission lists “Iran as a considerable transnational threat because it is likely monitoring, influencing, collecting information on, harassing and intimidating the Iranian diaspora community to prevent criticism of Iran” and the national security committee found that Iran is one of “the primary perpetrators of repression against ethnocultural communities in Canada”. This list only chronicles the direct harm the regime has done to Canada itself. Forget that this regime is the single biggest sponsor of terrorism in the world, that it orchestrated the attacks of October 7, 2023, that it has killed countless of its own citizens, including 30,000 in the last month alone. All of these moral atrocities only compound the regime with the evil that the regime has done to our country.

In other words, it is in our national interest for this regime to be defeated and replaced by the Iranian people with a peaceful democracy. We need strong leadership that takes a stand, maintains that stand, stays consistent at home and abroad, and shows up in this House of Commons to do what is right and speak for the Canadian people. That is what we do here today. We as Conservatives make it clear that it is in our national interest that the regime in Iran, which has infiltrated our country, murdered at least 55 of our citizens, and harassed countless others, be removed. That is why I supported the Prime Minister's initial support of the U.S. and Israeli air strikes.

Since that time, the Prime Minister has flipped and flopped more than four times, having four contradictory positions in as many days. First, he said he was for the attack. Then he regretted his support for the attack. Then he said that his support for the attack was illegal under international law. He said he would consider sending troops for the attack, which he supported but regretted supporting, and then said that it was illegal under international law. His party says one thing to one group and the opposite to another, confusing our allies and dividing Canadians.

Some of the Prime Minister's own Liberal MPs said in the newspaper today, “What the hell” when it comes to his stance on the war in the Middle East, and now he has gone into hiding, having failed to speak a single word in tonight's debate. In this time of crisis, Canadians deserve to know where the Prime Minister stands. Indeed, they deserve to know where the Prime Minister is.

This is a security and affordability crisis. This is an international war on which the Prime Minister has already flip-flopped four times. He should speak out here in the House of Commons, in front of Canadians, instead of hiding. Where is the Prime Minister?

We have been clear and unwavering, Conservatives support the right of the Iranian people to remove their terrorist regime, a regime that has murdered countless Canadians and targets our people on our soil, in order to bring forth a peaceful democracy in Iran.

We must turn our attention, though, to our own country. What does this war mean for Canada? First, we must be safe at home. Canada has become more dangerous under the Liberal government. There have always been wars in the Middle East, but they have never spilled onto Canadian streets. However, after 10 years of Liberal immigration, Liberal catch-and-release laws and Liberal incompetence, we are seeing violence and terrorism normalized in Canada, synagogues shot at, dissidents targeted and regime officials using our country as a safe haven.

As of February 5, only one of the 28 individuals identified by CBSA as illegal foreign regime officials has been kicked out. That does not take into account that, according to Global News, there have been as many as 700 of these regime, terrorist-linked officials who are making Canada their personal hotel. Why has the Prime Minister not moved to have these people deported from our country? The Prime Minister has not made any changes to the Criminal Code to kick the terrorists out, lock the criminals up or stop new ones from coming in.

We need a plan to deport all the regime officials. They need to be identified, they need to be arrested and they need to be deported. There is no room for IRGC or Iranian regime officials in our country. Kick them out.

We need to ensure that Canada is safe for its Persian and Jewish communities, and we need a real action plan to protect synagogues and other places of worship that have come under attack. The government has failed to keep Jews, Persians and other Canadians safe in this country. Enough is enough. We are a very welcoming people, but we will not put up with foreign wars and other forms of terrorism spilling onto our streets. This is Canada, and every Canadian has the right to feel safe living in this country.

We must be affordable at home. Oil prices are spiking due to the blockage of the Strait of Hormuz, which transports about a fifth of the globe's oil. The government cannot control global oil prices, but it can control domestic taxes and policies allowing domestic production.

The Prime Minister has brought in a new tax, the fuel standard, and has blocked domestic production of our oil. We need a plan to unlock affordable energy to supply not only ourselves but the entire world. We need to repeal anti-energy laws such as Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, and the industrial carbon tax, to unblock and unlock our resources, shipping them off our coasts in order to fuel our friends and power our paycheques. In this way, we can make the country both more affordable and more autonomous.

That must be our mission. We work for Canada. That is our job in this place. We must be a country that is affordable at home, safe at home and strong at home so we can defend our interests and be unbreakable abroad. We are here for our country and our people.

Motions in Amendment

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what have Liberals given Canadians after 10 years? They have forced 2.2 million Canadians to food banks in a single month. They have ensured that Canada has the most indebted households in the entire G7. They have made sure that food inflation is the highest in the entire G7.

After causing all of that and knowing they caused all that, the first thing the Liberals are trying to do in this budget implementation act is to give unlimited powers to their ministers, and to do what? It is so they can reward, behind backdoor shady deals, and give Liberal-connected insiders, whether individuals or companies like Brookfield, contracts that would be void of and could avoid the Conflict of Interest Act.

In fact, the Liberals wanted to give unlimited powers to ministers and the Prime Minister to give contracts to any entity or company that would avoid any act of Parliament, including the Conflict of Interest Act, or anything except something that would break the Criminal Code. These could be shady backroom deals.

We have seen this with the Liberals before. While this country is being hit with high inflation and a crime rate that is out of control because of soft-on-crime Liberal policies, and after knowing all of that, this was what the Liberals wanted to do. It shows where the Prime Minister and the Liberal government's priorities are. They are not with Canadians. They are once again for Liberals and well-connected Liberal insiders.

The Prime Minister said a lot of things during the election, but I want to highlight some of the things he said he would do. He said that he was the guy, and that if he was elected, he would fix all the problems that 10 years of the Liberals created. In fact, a Liberal is a Liberal, and he liberalled once again. His promises or rhetoric would never match what reality is for Canadians.

This is the guy who says to judge him by the price of food at the grocery store. What ended up happening after he said that? Canada now has the highest food inflation in the entire G7. It is the highest. In fact, it is double what it is in the U.S., and I hear the Liberals being happy about that. They do not care that there are moms who have to double-check and triple-check the price of food now before they buy it, that they have to starve themselves or choose less nutritious food for their children because of how high food inflation is in Canada after 10 years of the Liberals' failed policies.

What did the Liberals do in this budget? They could have done a lot in this budget to help bring down food prices. Remember, it was the current finance minister, right before Thanksgiving 2023, who tried to put on this strong act and said he was going to call all the CEOs from the grocery stores, tell them what was on his mind and tell them the way it is, and that after that, grocery prices would come down. Thanksgiving 2023, Thanksgiving 2024 and Thanksgiving 2025 went by, and the only thing that happened was that Canada got the highest food inflation in the G7. This is the track record of the government.

Once again they talked a big game, but the reality for Canadians did not match the big rhetoric coming out of the Liberals' mouths. The Prime Minister, again, said that he was the guy who should be judged by the prices at the grocery store. The verdict is out, and it is very expensive. It is one of the reasons 2.2 million Canadians are visiting a food bank in a single month now, a third of whom are children. Children are starving in this country. I cannot believe we are talking about this in a first world country like Canada. This is the reality, where people who used to volunteer at food banks are now standing in line at the food bank, waiting for food, because they are hungry. Once again the Prime Minister's rhetoric did not match what the reality of Canadians is today.

This is the same Prime Minister who said he was going to get a deal with Trump, that he was the guy. Canadians should elect him and watch his elbows go up. What happened after that? He continued the same failed policies of Justin Trudeau, who for 10 years was blocking our resources and making sure that nothing got built in this country. It is the same reason Canada is not the strong, sovereign, independent country and energy superpower that it should be today. It is because the Prime Minister doubled down on those same policies. He said he signed a piece of paper saying they intend and want pipelines to be built, but the same policies that were passed that do not let anything get built in this country are still there, and they will continue to be there because this eco-radical government's ideology will not let them get anything built.

We should have had pipelines built. We could have had mines built. In fact, when I talked to a mining company in B.C., they said it takes something like 18 years to get a mine approved. Who wants to invest in Canada and pump in all this money for 18 years to maybe get a permit approved for a mine? It is ridiculous. This is why more than $600 billion of good Canadian investment has fled to the U.S. in 10 years under the Liberals. The Prime Minister is no different, because close to $60 billion of Canadian investment fled to the U.S. once he became Prime Minister.

There is no investment environment left in Canada for people to see any type of return, because the same failed policies, like Bill C-69, the “no new pipelines” bill, are still there. Bill C-48, which does not let our product leave the west coast, is still there. The industrial carbon tax, which also contributes to higher grocery prices, is still there. While I am talking about grocery prices, the Liberals have still not gotten rid of the food packaging tax, which adds an extra $1 billion in costs on food every single year. That is not in this budget. In fact, they promised in this budget that food prices would go up, because the industrial carbon tax would go up. When it comes to our energy sector, the industrial carbon tax is still there and does more harm than good. The Liberals do not really have a plan.

All of this is the reason Canada is so reliant on the U.S. We are reliant on other countries. We know the stories. When our allies came to us, looking for our good, low-carbon energy, these guys turned them away, saying there was no business case. We still do not have a case, because nothing is getting built in this country. Under the Liberals, nothing will get built in this country. Then the Prime Minister said they were going to build at speeds not seen since World War II, yet, according to their own housing agency, every single year they miss their targets. They are well below their targets.

Instead of putting foundations into the ground, the only thing that these guys have created in this budget is a fourth bureaucracy. After they spent over $90 billion on housing, housing is more expensive than ever. In fact, youth do not now think they will ever be able to afford a house unless they have the bank of mom and dad. That is the reality after 10 years of the Liberal government. We need to turn all of that around and bring hope back to this country.

Under the leadership of our leader, that is what the Conservatives will do. We need to get our resources to market and get rid of these bad Liberal laws that are anti-development, anti-growth and anti-resources. We need to get those out of the way so we can produce more here and sell more, so we are not only independent but self-reliant and can become an energy superpower once again, as we used to be.

Conservatives are going to get all the gatekeepers out of the way so we can get more homes built in this country. We are going to stop the out-of-control deficits, like the ones the government continues to have, that make taxes go up. We will bring down everyone's taxes and make sure inflation does not get out of control like it does under the Liberals, so Canadians can keep more in their pockets and spend more on what they want to spend it on.

A Conservative government is also going to bring back safe streets, something the entire country is crying for. That will happen under the Conservatives.

Canada Groceries and Essentials Benefit Act

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we all remember when the finance minister made a grand show in 2023, right before Thanksgiving. He said he was going to pull up his pants, roll up his sleeves, call the five major grocery store CEOs, tell them what was on his mind and make sure that grocery prices came down. He put on this grand show. Then the grocery store CEOs came and went. What happened after that? It is almost two years since he did that and now Canadians have the highest food inflation in the G7. In fact, it is one of the reasons why 2.2 million Canadians are going to food banks, a third of which are children.

Liberals liberalled, and Liberal math created this problem. They created inflationary deficits. If we can believe it, the Prime Minister is a worse money manager than Justin Trudeau was. Whatever deficit Justin Trudeau left, the Prime Minister said he would double it, and in fact he did. What does that do? It makes everything a lot more expensive. They do not focus on the problem that this creates. They create a problem, which, in this case, is food inflation, and then give Canadians their own money, either through printing more money or borrowing more, just to give them what my community calls a lollipop, so they can look like they are actually fixing the problem.

However, the real problem is the cost of food. How can the government say we are going to have the fastest-growing economy in the G7 and not do anything? In fact, GDP per capita flatlined all of last year, and the Bank of Canada is saying the growth in Canada will basically flatline next year, too. The only thing that is the fastest growing in the G7 is food inflation in Canada. It is double what it is in America. Food prices are rising and are double what they are in the U.S. This should not be happening. We have so much land here for farmers to grow and for processors, for us to be able to do anything and everything we want. There is one problem, and that is the Liberal government getting in the way.

It is either taxes or barriers, barriers or taxes. They have the industrial carbon tax and the Liberal fuel standard. Liberals keep taxing anything and everything they can. They have a fertilizer tax. They have a food packaging tax that costs an extra $1 billion a year. It is not that we cannot grow and process food here. It is that the government will not let that happen.

Our energy sector is a clear example of that. We should be an energy superpower. We should be able to be sovereign and independent from the U.S., so that tariffs do not bother us at all because we have our own growing economy and are not dependent on just one country. However, because of anti-development laws and taxes like Bill C-69, the no new pipeline bill, or Bill C-48, which does not let our oil and gas leave the west coast, and the industrial carbon tax, pipelines are not getting built. Mines are not getting built. Nothing is getting built in Canada because of these Liberal anti-development laws and taxes.

The solution that would fix all of these issues is clear. It is for the Liberals to get out of the way. Let Canadians build. Let farmers farm. Let producers produce. Let Canada be what it used to be: an energy superpower, independent and sovereign. We just need the government to get out of the way. It is as simple as that.

It is a concerning fact, which we do not hear the Liberals talk about, that. 2.2 million Canadians a month are going to a food bank. They are food insecure. People do not know where their paycheques are going because the government has raised taxes so high by their inflationary spending that more goes toward Canadians' taxes than it does to essentials like food and housing combined. This is not only damaging to Canadians but is fiscal mismanagement to the highest degree. Every single cost at the grocery store has gone up. We hear about moms looking for produce, double-checking and triple-checking. In fact, sometimes they delay buying what they want to buy. They are having to buy less nutritious food for their kids and going with alternatives that are unhealthy for them.

All of this spending has consequences. In fact, now, because of the cost of everything, with inflation rising, people are not meeting milestones that they used to be able to meet. It coincides with the low birth rates happening in Canada now. People are not graduating on time. People are not able to buy a home. People are not getting married. They cannot even go on dates, for God's sake. A lot of people are saying they cannot even afford to go on dates; forget the rest of it. They cannot leave their parents' basements. Housing is out of control. We have talked about the price of food. We have the highest food inflation in the G7.

All those milestones are being missed by Canadians. We used to enjoy them before, when a single paycheque used to get someone by. People used to be able to support their families. They were able to live in safe neighbourhoods. However, after 10 years of the same old Liberal government, Canadians cannot get by. Canadians, in fact, are suffering more than we have ever seen before. It is time to reverse all that.

It is time to bring in the Conservative plan. The Liberals have already done a good job of taking a lot of our ideas, but they are implementing only half of them. Why do they not just take all of them? We do not care about being given credit whatsoever.

Let us go ahead and let us make Canada an energy superpower again. Let us get rid of Liberal anti-development laws and taxes, get rid of the no new pipelines bill, get rid of the tanker ban, scrap the industrial carbon tax and get rid of the Liberal fuel standard. Let us get rid of the food packaging tax and stop attacking our farmers. Let them grow. Let our shippers ship. Let the tankers leave the west coast so that they can go to Asian markets and sell our product. Let us not be reliant on just one customer anymore.

Let us get back to the Canada we all used to know, where our middle class used to be world class. Now, under the Liberals, that middle class is not there anymore. It is harder and harder. The gap between the classes are getting wider and wider. That is what the Liberal government wants. It wants more people to have handouts, not hand-ups. That is not the Canada that we used to know. That is not the Canada that Conservatives will bring to Canadians.

Let us get this done. Let us start producing more here in Canada. We have gold underneath our feet. Let us mine it. Let us get it out of the ground and give Canadians what they want, a safe and affordable future.

Opposition Motion—Canadian Economic Sovereignty

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I just want to pick up on one thing the member said about the most sensitive waters in the world in his defence of Liberal Bill C-48, which blocked energy pipelines to the west coast.

Does the member acknowledge that foreign oil tankers are in the same ocean and in the same areas? Does he acknowledge that preventing exports from Canada does not prevent the presence of exactly the same ships, carrying the same products, in the same waters?

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a new riding name, but I have been through four elections to reach this place four different times now, and I thank the voters in Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies for sending me here again.

I have a really simple question for the member opposite: What is it that he and his government have against releasing Canadian resources, and releasing Canadian people to develop those resources, to make Canada the country that we can be? Every piece of legislation that I have seen from the government over the past 10 years restricts Canadians from getting our resources to market, including Bill C-48, the tanker ban, and Bill C-69. All of these pieces of government legislation have restricted the opportunity, the wealth and the prosperity that Canadians could be enjoying, rather than having to rely on the food banks and school food programs that the government spouts as being the solution for everything, when people would rather be able to afford their own groceries.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, our country should be the most self-sufficient and most affordable country in the world, because we have the most resources per capita in the world. We have the fourth-largest oil reserve in the world. We rank fifth in natural gas. We have the longest and most accessible coastline. We have the largest reserves of uranium and other ingredients used in fertilizers. We have the largest reserves of drinking water. We should therefore be the richest, most self-sufficient and most affordable country in the world.

However, how do we rank? Canada currently has the worst housing prices in the G7. We have had the worst economic growth for the past 10 years and the worst investment levels in the G7. We now have the highest food inflation in the G7. Half a trillion dollars in Canadian investment has left Canada for the United States over the past 10 years, and that amount has increased since this Prime Minister came to power.

We know what the problem is. We have a country that is paralyzed by bureaucracy, which is preventing us from accessing our own resources. Because of this bureaucracy, it takes 19 years to get a mining project approved. This bureaucracy has blocked the construction of two major pipelines to our coasts, which would have allowed us to export our greatest resources overseas. Bureaucracy is also preventing us from building natural gas liquefaction facilities.

How do we solve this? The Prime Minister's solution is to create even more bureaucracy. Since taking office, he has not repealed a single anti-development law or eliminated any of the anti-development bureaucracy. He has not given the green light to a single pipeline. What he has done is add new laws on top of existing laws, new regulations on top of existing regulations and new agencies on top of existing agencies. If we all agree that bureaucracy is preventing us from building in Canada, then more bureaucracy cannot be the solution. On the contrary, the government needs to get out of the way so that Canada can build economic sovereignty.

That is why we are proposing the economic sovereignty act today. The act aims to eliminate capital gains taxes for those who reinvest in Canada, which will help us attract the $500 billion in investments that have gone to the United States. This will enable us to develop technologies and build mines, factories and other economic infrastructure. We need to eliminate anti-development laws, such as Bill C‑69 and Bill C‑48, so that we can export our energy overseas and approve a pipeline to the Pacific now rather than in two years. We must also immediately pass laws that prevent our technology from being sold overseas and to other countries. Finally, we must give provinces a bonus for every interprovincial trade barrier they remove in order to accelerate true Canada-wide free trade. The Prime Minister has given the illusion that he is taking action with signing ceremonies, photo ops and grand speeches. We do not need speeches. In fact, we do not need him to do anything but get out of the way.

We are moving this patriotic motion in good faith to liberate our entrepreneurs, investors and workers, to bring production and paycheques back to Canada and to allow us to truly be masters in our own house. By passing the sovereignty bill, we will become masters in our own house and we will control our own destiny.

Canada should be the most affordable and autonomous nation on earth. We have the biggest oceanic coastline. We are number one in uranium and potash. We are number four in oil. We have the sixth-highest production of natural gas anywhere on earth. We have the most fresh water. We have the sixth-largest amount of farmland per capita, yet somehow we cannot feed, fuel or defend ourselves.

It should be dirt cheap to live in Canada because we have the most dirt to build homes on, to dig resources from and to grow food in, yet we are one of the most expensive places to use energy, to buy homes or to buy food. In fact, food price inflation is now the highest in the G7 after a year of the Prime Minister promising to bring prices down. We have 2.2 million people who line up at food banks. We have the most expensive real estate in the G7. Our energy costs are soaring while we cannot get our own resources out of the ground and to markets.

What is worse is that our economy has become even more dependent over the last decade. Half a trillion dollars' worth of net investment has fled to the United States of America. Canada has had the worst economic growth of any G7 nation under the Liberal government. We have the worst investment. In fact, we get 15,000 dollars' worth of investment per worker, while the Americans get $28,000, both measured in United States dollars. This has left us poorer, weaker and more dependent on other countries.

We all understand the problem. Canada's economy is paralyzed by the high cost and slow pace of our massive bureaucracy. Everybody agrees that the permitting times are too slow. We know the only thing standing in the way is this bureaucracy, because we have trillions of dollars in pension fund investment waiting on the sidelines or invested overseas, tens of thousands of construction workers ready to get to work, and the most resources per capita in the world. The only things standing in the way are federal permits. Because these are interprovincial projects, they only require federal permits.

The Prime Minister's solution to the problem of too much bureaucracy is to create even more bureaucracy. We have too many agencies blocking resource development, so he creates a new agency to stack on top of it. We have too many laws that stand in the way of safe and responsible resource development, so he creates even more laws. He is confusing the problem with the solution. We do not need more signing ceremonies, more summits, more laws, more agencies, more corporate buzzwords or more abracadabra. What we need from the Prime Minister is one thing: for him to get out of the way and grant a permit. The unique power to build interprovincial pipelines is a federal power under the Constitution, and the legal power is with the Prime Minister, under Bill C-5. He only needs to get out of the way and grant the permits for these things to happen.

We propose a Canadian sovereignty act, which would make us strong and self-reliant and would let us stand on our own two feet. It would repeal the anti-energy laws, Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, so we can ship energy off our coast. It would rapidly approve a pipeline to the Pacific in order to move 30 billion dollars' worth of our oil to overseas markets, which is bigger than the total exports to China in an entire year. It would eliminate the capital gains tax on reinvestments in Canada, causing an economic boom and bringing that half a trillion dollars' worth of investment back. It would require incentives and other rules in order to keep the new Canadian technology we invent here in Canada. It would create bonuses for our provinces when they open up their markets to free trade across Canada.

This is a real and serious plan to make Canada the most affordable and autonomous country anywhere on earth, a nation that is strong enough to stand on its own two feet and sovereign enough to never have to bow before any other nation. We call on all parliamentarians to rally for this mission because our country is worth the fight.

[Rebecca Chartrand, Liberal, Minister of Northern and Arctic Affairs and Minister responsible for the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Burlington North—Milton West.

Hello. Tansi. Aaniin. Boozhoo. Kwe kwe. Ullukkut.

The Conservatives propose a Canada sovereignty act, which calls for a sweeping repeal of federal measures, including the Impact Assessment Act, the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, carbon pricing for industry, the oil and gas emissions cap and other regulations, all in the name of economic sovereignty.

Canadians want a strong economy. Northerners want jobs, infrastructure and opportunity. Indigenous peoples want development that advances self-determination and long-term prosperity. However, sovereignty in Canada is not built by erasing obligations; it is built by honouring them.

Section 35 of the Constitution Act is not a talking point; it is a binding law. Any approach to development that treats indigenous rights as obstacles to be swept aside is not sovereignty. It is a step backwards to decisions made far away and consequences carried for generations. Any repeal of law that affects indigenous lands, waters and rights must be done in full partnership with indigenous peoples, consistent with section 35, the duty to consult and Canada's commitment under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

This motion is striking not only for what it proposes to repeal, but for what it refuses to answer. There is no clarity on how indigenous consent fits into the plan, and it raises a serious question. If key frameworks are stripped away, how do we avoid weakening consultation in practice, and how do we prevent years of uncertainty and litigation? There is also no clarity on whether or how the Conservatives believe Canada will continue to honour UNDRIP, which Parliament has affirmed in law and set a framework to advance at the federal level.

Here are the questions that northern and indigenous communities deserve answered: Where does indigenous consent sit in the Conservative plan? From the text of the motion, it appears as if that consent has not been considered. Does UNDRIP still apply, even when it is inconvenient?

This proposal is highly relevant to northern and Arctic affairs, because it would fundamentally reshape the way resources develop and environmental protections and economic policy operate in indigenous and northern territories. It would change how decisions are made, whose voices count and whether treaty-based government is treated as a foundation or as an afterthought.

The north and Arctic are not theoretical. I represent Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, home to first nations, Inuit and Métis communities who live every day with the consequences of decisions that are made in the House. When we talk about economic sovereignty, I ask colleagues to pause and truly listen. In the north, sovereignty is not a slogan. It is indigenous nations deciding what happens on their lands. It is protecting waters that sustain food security. It is development done with communities and not to them. That is why blanket repeal is so dangerous.

In northern regions, modern treaties and land claim agreements are not optional. They are constitutionally protected. They establish co-management systems and review processes that reflect indigenous jurisdiction and northern realities. Sweeping those aside without co-development would undermine stability, and it would invite the very outcome Canadians say they want to avoid, which is conflict, court challenges and delay.

We also need to speak plainly about environmental stewardship. The Arctic is warming faster than the global average. Permafrost thaw, coastal erosion and changing ice conditions are already putting northern homes, roads and community infrastructure at risk. This is not ideology. It is reality happening in real time. This reality is what northerners see first-hand each and every day. Climate change has significant impacts on the daily lives of northerners, from being able to access seasonal food to wildfires, traditional hunting practices and food sources. Any plan that weakens environmental protection without a credible replacement does not make Canada stronger. It makes northern communities more vulnerable.

I want to acknowledge something important. Many indigenous governments and northern leaders want approvals to move faster. They want projects that bring revenue, training and good jobs. They want fewer redundant steps and clearer timelines. That is a legitimate conversation. At the same time, however, many indigenous leaders and rights holders have been clear. Repealing assessment rules without a credible replacement risks weakening rights, consultation and public confidence. Support exists where policies strengthen indigenous economic sovereignty and reduce one-size-fits-all approaches. Opposition centres on any framework that prioritizes speed over consultation, indigenous decision-making, environmental stewardship and UNDRIP commitments.

The choice is not development or rights. The choice is good development versus bad development. Indigenous leaders are not asking for their rights to be bypassed. They are asking for indigenous-led development, where decision-making, benefits and stewardship are shared and where consent is built from the start. That is the approach our government supports: getting to yes faster by building it right, with indigenous partners, with treaty-based governance, with strong environmental safeguards and with credible rules that stand up in court and stand up in communities.

Communities know what they need better than anyone sitting in this House. If the opposition wants a serious debate about streamlining approvals and strengthening Canada's economic resilience, we will have that debate, but a motion that demands sweeping repeal while sidestepping section 35, modern treaties and UNDRIP obligations is not a plan for prosperity. It is a plan for instability.

In closing, I will say plainly that sweeping calls to repeal laws without understanding northern realities risk repeating old mistakes, projects that moved fast and communities that paid the price. In the north, we do not have the luxury of political theatre. We build with care because we live with the consequences. Prosperity and reconciliation are not competing goals. They are inseparable and must be treated that way. Canada's strength will never come from weakening rights. It will come from honouring them and building together.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today to speak to our opposition day motion on the reintroduction of a Canadian sovereignty act.

Before I get to the act, I would like to talk about the change in the political landscape between its first introduction and today. Canada is at a precipice. We are facing a very real economic threat. The proposed Canadian sovereignty act is a strong step in the right direction. It would remove barriers and red tape that have held Canada back. It calls on the Prime Minister to promote investments by removing capital gains tax on reinvestments in Canada, entice provincial governments to open their markets up, build pipelines, improve access to the Ring of Fire in northern Ontario and start at least one new Greenfield LNG project.

Numerous ministers have stood up in this place signalling their willingness to work with the opposition. It is time to make good on that promise, and it needs to happen as soon as possible because Canadian industry and jobs are suffering. For nearly a year, Canada has been at the receiving end of unprovoked and unjustifiable tariffs. The rationale behind why Washington decided to implement these taxes can be debated ad nauseam, but functionally, the answer to that question is irrelevant. The decisions of the President are out of our hands, but how we as elected representatives, and more importantly, Canadians as a society, respond is not.

There are two pieces of advice that should be obvious to anyone looking in from the outside of the negotiations that even the most casual of observers will conclude. First, we are stronger together than we are apart. That applies to the negotiating table just as much as it does to the floor of the House of Commons. Second, patience is wearing thin. Offering at least some form of openness and transparency to stakeholders, opposition parties and, more importantly, the families and business owners suffering under these tariffs would go an extremely long way in dispersing the fog and noise surrounding the negotiations.

Before going any further, I need to reiterate that the tariffs the President of the United States has implemented are unjustified, unfair, unprovoked and, most importantly, unnecessary. They are causing untold levels of harm in strategic sectors on both sides of the border. They are shuttering plants and foundries. Their immediate effects on the Canadian economy are paralyzing.

The response of Canadian workers and voters is predictable and more than understandable. Canada is responding. The government is making efforts, as is the opposition. We are doing that through our proposed Canadian sovereignty act, which would allow Canada to build more, extract more, import more and, most importantly, to thrive more.

Canada's Conservatives, despite the claims of certain members on the other side, have shown a willingness to work with the government when the government proposes sensible, results-oriented policies like Bill C-5. A Canadian sovereignty act would build on that economic stewardship by giving the government the tools to help spur on private sector development across the nation by removing the regulatory shackles the Prime Minister's predecessor bound the government with.

The legacy of the unfair, unjust Trump tariffs will be an extremely painful but valuable lesson for Canadian policy-makers. The importance of diversification and self-reliance is an increasingly unstable global threat environment.

While the outlook is bleak, there has been a noticeable shift in at least the rhetoric coming from the other side of the House since the previous election. For a decade we had a government that was staunchly anti-pipeline. Any resource development project posed an immediate and direct existential threat to the planet. Defence spending was seen as unnecessary and abrasive, ironically enough because our geography and proximity to the United States meant we did not have a need for an efficient independent military. Multilateral dialogue with despots in Iran and China were the approach of the world's most recent postnational state.

Despite having largely the same caucus and much of the same cabinet, the Prime Minister, who campaigned on acting as a foil to what he calls “unstable and unpredictable” actors, has committed verbally to adopting some of the positions we have championed, at least in principle.

The government worked with the Conservative opposition to pass Bill C-5, which gives the government the capacity to fast-track natural resource projects in the national interest. The government, after a decade of pressure, finally agreed to the Conservative-led push to increase defence spending and increase border security, coupled with reduced immigration targets. In my mind, this sizable shift in direction from the government, its cabinet and caucus can be explained by only one thing: U.S. tariffs.

Having campaigned myself on many of these issues, I will not fault the Prime Minister for coming to his senses, even if it took crippling tariffs from a foreign government to prompt a moment of clarity that I highly doubt his predecessor was ever willing to entertain. Once again, I would like to reiterate that these tariffs on Canadian goods and services are unjustified, unfair, unprovoked and unnecessary, but they have forced Canada to make difficult decisions that it should have made a decade ago. I applaud the government for making those select few difficult decisions in principle, which have caused a rupture in his caucus that we are seeing play out in real time.

The Prime Minister's speech at Davos was well written, trading in Ted and Samantha on main street with Thucydides and President Havel. However, writing a speech and delivering a speech are the easy parts. What is difficult is actually delivering on those promises.

To that end, to achieve that goal of diversifying trade and kick-starting our domestic supply chains and building independence and economic sovereignty here at home, the Conservatives have introduced a Canadian sovereignty act. It calls for a battery of changes to the Liberal government's decade of stifling economic growth by repealing unnecessary regulatory and statutory caps like the oil and gas cap, the industrial carbon tax, the EV mandate, the plastic bans, Bill C-69 and Bill C-48. It calls for serious investment in our natural resource sectors by fast-tracking projects that create Canadian goods with Canadian resources by Canadian companies creating Canadian jobs.

The Prime Minister would do well to follow in the footsteps of his former boss and continue the generational trade diversification carried out by former prime minister Stephen Harper. His prowess serves as an excellent blueprint to follow as he and his cabinet navigate the treacherous waters of international trade and relations in 2026. The best time to continue diversification was a decade ago. The second best time to diversify is now.

Canada, Canadians and especially policy-makers need to remember that the relationship between Canada and the United States will go past the President and the Prime Minister. The current occupants of 24 Sussex and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue are minor actors in a much larger, deeper and historic relationship. We need to remember that. Trade is not finite. We can and should aim not only to increase trade with our European and Asian allies but also to seek new emerging markets in Africa and on the subcontinent, and most importantly to repair, renew and reinvigorate our trade relationship with the United States.

During his lauded Davos speech, the Prime Minister glibly dismissed “this aphorism of Thucydides” on the international order by simply countering the Greek historian's observations with a powerful and deeply insightful quote. It will not. The Prime Minister assured us that his dealings with petro-dictators and autocrats in Qatar and China instead of like-minded democracies is not naive multilateralism. I will leave Parliament with this quote from that same Greek polymath:

...and their judgment was based more upon blind wishing than upon any sound prediction; for it is a habit of mankind to entrust to careless hope what they long for, and to use sovereign reason to thrust aside what they do not desire.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her kind words and her warm wishes. We have a bit of an unusual personal relationship. Her words mean more to me than people can probably imagine. I hope the people of Lakeland will continue to have confidence in me, despite the fact that I just said those words.

I agree with her that we have to set the facts straight about Bill C-48. Actually, this is a lesson in how effective the Liberals were at eating the NDP opposition whole while the NDP did not do its job. This is because, in fact, Bill C-48 did not give any teeth to the voluntary exclusion zone that the member references. It did not do anything of the sort, if one believes that marine tanker traffic is an irreparable ecological harm to the marine environment, because what Bill C-48 actually did, and this is why we know it was only to block oil exports from Alberta, was ban the loading and off-loading of crude and persistent oils at ports in that region and ban tankers of a certain capacity, a certain volume and a certain weight. Those would be the supertankers that take the direct and safest deepwater route to Asia.

This would have happened if the Liberals had redone indigenous consultation on the northern gateway, just as every single one of those indigenous communities that had mutual benefit agreements wanted them to. He never consulted them—

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is good to see my hon. friend from Lakeland back in this place and well. We were deeply concerned when she was in hospital during the time of the budget debate. I apologize, Madam Speaker, but it had to be said.

I also want to say that she will know we agree on more things than others might imagine. However, on the offshore tanker issue, where U.S. and offshore foreign tankers pass by Canada's waters and British Columbian waters, they pass on the outside, because that is the direct route from Alaska to Washington state. They do not come in through the inside passages that are covered by Bill C-48.

I wonder if we can agree that we should probably stick to the facts of the geography and the waters where tankers move and where they do not.