Debates of Dec. 9th, 2025

Opposition Motion—Pipeline Construction

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

Mr. Speaker, I will try to compress this to something short for my hon. friend from Humber River—Black Creek.

The memorandum of understanding speaks of a bitumen pipeline. I am wondering if the government has considered that if the goal is really to ship bitumen to the port of Vancouver, or other ports, to take it to Asia, the safest way to ship that is with existing infrastructure on trains to container ships.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the government is looking at everything possible to help us with the economic challenges we are currently facing.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake, SK]

Mr. Speaker, just off the top, I want to note that I will be splitting my time this afternoon.

Canada is rich in natural resources, and our energy sector creates opportunity, growth and prosperity for our country. In my region, energy jobs support families and generate growth for small businesses, contractors, tradespeople and apprentices. These companies do not just produce energy. They create middle-class jobs, they sustain local economies, they invest in local needs and community projects, and they do it while operating under some of the highest environmental and safety standards anywhere in the world.

Canada has the energy that we need as a country and that the world needs. In fact, the world wants more Canada. However, for 10 years, the “keep it in the ground” Liberals have done everything possible to hinder energy development in Canada.

The Liberals passed Bill C-69, the “no more pipelines” bill, a bill that went so far as to give the federal government unprecedented powers over provincial infrastructure, industry and natural resources. Even the Supreme Court has deemed it unconstitutional. They imposed a shipping ban on the northern B.C. coast that blocks responsible Canadian energy from reaching world markets. They have done that while letting foreign ships carrying foreign energy sail freely through the same waters. They have chased away investment, crippled our competitiveness and, in doing so, threatened energy security for not only Canada but also our allies.

Now, after a decade of this, the Prime Minister tells Canadians that his government wants to build things previously thought impossible, at speeds we have not seen in generations. He told us he would turn Canada into an energy superpower. He has now signed a memorandum of understanding with Alberta and claimed that at the core of this agreement is a priority to have a pipeline to Asia.

Today's motion simply asks the Liberals to vote for the very words their own Prime Minister signed, the same words the Liberals have been celebrating and congratulating themselves over for nearly two weeks. It asks them to support a pipeline to the Pacific. It asks them to stop hiding behind premiers and non-existent vetoes. It asks them to be honest with Canadians about their intentions and their priorities.

Already, though, the cracks are showing on that side of the House. Liberal members are openly rejecting the Prime Minister's MOU. The member for Fleetwood—Port Kells said there will be no pipeline without the consent of the Premier of British Columbia. The member for Victoria has plainly said he does not support a pipeline. Premier Eby, to whom the Prime Minister has effectively handed a veto, has been equally clear. He says that a pipeline to the Pacific will not go ahead, that it will never be built and that he refuses to allow the shipping ban to be lifted.

Well, the Premier of British Columbia does not have a veto. The Constitution is explicit. Only the federal government has the power to approve an interprovincial pipeline. No premier can stop it, and no province can veto it. The Liberal government knows this. Instead of owning that responsibility, the Prime Minister would rather use Premier Eby as a political shield. The Prime Minister is using him as someone he can point to when he backs away from the pipeline after the next election.

If the Liberals cannot stand behind their own MOU in the House, and if they cannot give the private sector the certainty and confidence that it needs to invest in a project of this scale, then this MOU is nothing more than the illusion of progress. It is not real progress. Shamefully, the Liberals have already announced that they will not support today's motion. Liberals are claiming that the motion somehow does not reflect the entire agreement, and that is simply not true.

The motion we are debating takes note of the MOU in its entirety. The Liberal government's unwillingness to stand behind it does not instill confidence. Let us not forget the fact that the MOU does not even promise a pipeline. It does not start construction. It does not commit a single metre of pipe to being laid. All it says is that seven months from now, a proposal might be sent to the federal office for two more years of study. The Liberal government is so divided that it cannot even unite behind such a limited proposal.

After eight months of promises of building at unimaginable speed, Canadians have seen nothing but paper shuffling, rebranded offices, and more and more press conferences. The Liberal member for Vancouver Granville's comments are quite telling. He called this pipeline “a theoretical conversation right now”. Where do we stand today? There is no route, no proponent, no approval process and, as we are seeing, absolutely no commitment from the Liberal caucus.

Canadians cannot afford another Liberal pipe dream, and after 10 years of failed and damaging policies, Canadians cannot afford the Liberal government. The Prime Minister's delays, taxes and regulatory roadblocks have continued to drive investment out of this country. Since he took office, nearly 50,000 more Canadians are unemployed, and nearly $50 billion of investment has fled the country. As the CEO of TC Energy said, the United States continues to be more attractive for investment than Canada. It is not that energy development and prosperity are not possible here in Canada. They are possible.

However, the Prime Minister needs to do just one thing for a pipeline to happen, and that is to get out of the way: get out of the way by repealing the industrial carbon tax that drives production out of Canada; get out of the way by repealing the anti-development laws like Bill C-69 and the shipping ban; get out of the way by granting a permit for a pipeline to the Pacific and unlocking the trillions of dollars of private investment that would be ready to build it.

Energy CEOs have publicly called on the Prime Minister to cut red tape, reduce timeline approvals and grow energy production. The current trade and global uncertainty is all the more reason to ensure we are doing what we can in Canada to spur economic growth that is within our control.

Getting the Liberal government out of the way would boost Canadian paycheques. It would strengthen the Canadian dollar. That in turn would make energy, food and homes more affordable. It would strengthen our self-reliance, security and sovereignty. It is time to do that.

Canadians need real action, not press releases, not paper pushing and not theoretical pipelines, no more delays and no more deflections. It is time for the Liberal government to stop talking out of both sides of its mouth, to stop blocking Canada's energy potential, to unlock the trillions of dollars of private sector energy investment, to build profitable pipelines and to enable the shipment of a million barrels of oil to Asia. Canadians are watching today. Do members know who else is watching? Investors are watching.

Let us be clear. If Liberals vote against this motion, they are voting against their own commitments. They are voting against the agreement that the Liberal Prime Minister signed and celebrated with the Alberta premier. They are making it once again clear that they cannot be taken at their word.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, today's Conservative motion leaves a few things out. There is no mention of industrial carbon pricing or of methane regulations. These omissions reflect the fact that the opposition would rather play political games with the MOU than work with us to implement it. I also think it reflects the fact that the leader of the official opposition would not have been able to negotiate such an agreement.

I have a simple question for my colleague, and I would ask her to answer yes or no. Does she support the MOU with Alberta in its entirety? I am not talking about today's motion, which has several omissions; I am talking about the MOU that was signed with Alberta.

Does my colleague support it in its entirety, yes or no?

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my remarks, we are voting on what the Prime Minister has signed, what he agreed to and came up with along with the Premier of Alberta. If the Liberals stand in this place today and vote against their leader's, the Prime Minister's, MOU, this just means, once again, that we cannot trust what the Liberals say because they will just do the opposite.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the MOU with Alberta is proof that the Liberals are abandoning the fight against climate change. It looks like they want to bring Conservative voters on side, but the Conservatives are doubling down with this motion.

What does my colleague think of the Liberals' new approach? Does this threaten the Conservatives' base?

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are all about stealing Conservative ideas. I look at my own private member's bill that the Liberals stole a couple of years ago and said they were going to implement. I had the minister at committee and asked her about it. She had no idea. They had no intention of implementing my private member's bill to give adoptive families equitable access to parental leave. They had no desire to do that.

This is just like all of their campaign promises. They will say whatever they need to say to get the vote, and then when it comes time, when the rubber hits the road and they have to be principled and take a decision, we know they will do the opposite.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. colleague comes from oil country in the northwest part of Saskatchewan. I am from the southeast, where we also have a lot of oil. Their area is heavy in the SAGD, while mine is more conventional. However, one thing we do know is that we support this pipeline because we know that it would take pressure off of the rail lines that are now causing a problem where other commodities, like potash and wheat, are not able to be shipped to the coast.

Can she maybe comment on that and why she thinks the Liberals are so stubborn when it comes to building pipelines?

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake, SK]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely. I mentioned in my speech the amount that energy companies do for local economies and local communities. When someone goes into any hockey rink in my riding, they can see what energy company has donated money to make sure the lights can stay on and the ice can stay Zambonied.

For us out west, we definitely have the frustration that, when we have to stop at the pesky rail crossing and we see oil being transferred by rail, we know we could remove that oil and put it into a pipeline. We could then be hauling more of our canola, our potash, our uranium and our grain to market.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. First, I would point out that when the hon. member's leader sat in government for 10 long years, there was not one inch of pipeline to tidewater. The question I have for the member is very simple. We have the Premier of Alberta, who signed the MOU. I would ask that the member pay really close attention to this. The Premier of Alberta signed the MOU, and other Conservative premiers have supported it.

Was the Premier of Alberta wrong in signing the MOU with the Prime Minister?

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I guess the member has a short memory. He does not remember that the federal Conservatives actually had four pipelines built. It was the Liberal government that cancelled 7,000 kilometres of pipe—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what four pipelines is she talking about?

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

That is a matter of debate. That is not a point of order.

I will let the hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake return to her comments.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake, SK]

Mr. Speaker, whenever we get under the skin of the Liberals, they have to interrupt the truth that we are speaking. This just speaks to the principle, or lack thereof, that the Liberals have.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Leduc—Wetaskiwin, The Economy; the hon. member for St. Albert—Sturgeon River, Ethics; the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, Taxation.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank my colleague from Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake for sharing her time today.

I rise today, as members know, as a member of Parliament for a coastal riding in British Columbia, as the NDP critic for Fisheries and Oceans, and also as a parliamentarian with a responsibility to uphold indigenous rights. Each of these roles carries a duty to speak plainly about risk to our marine ecosystems and to the coastal and indigenous communities whose livelihoods depend on healthy oceans.

Decisions taken in the House do not exist in the abstract; they carry real and lasting consequences for people who work on the water, harvest from it, steward it and depend on it for their very survival. It is for that reason that the motion before us today, as well as the MOU, is so alarming. It asks that we support a massive bitumen pipeline from Alberta to the north coast of British Columbia, along with the suspension of the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, and it asks that we do so without the consent of indigenous rights and title holders and without the support of the Province of British Columbia or of the coastal communities that would bear the full risk of an oil spill.

We have been here before, of course. First nations on the coast have consistently opposed crude oil tanker proposals for more than 50 years. They participated fully in the National Energy Board's joint review panel for the failed northern gateway project. Their answer was a definitive and principled no. That has not changed. In 2019 the federal government passed the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, Bill C-48, to protect the Great Bear Rainforest and the Great Bear Sea on behalf of all Canadians.

We have also been here before on the B.C. coast in a far more literal way. In January 1989, the Nestucca barge rammed its own tug off Washington state after a cable snapped. The U.S. Coast Guard ordered the leaking barge towed out to sea. There were 5,500 barrels of oil spilled, oil that floated just below the surface and could not be tracked or contained. Days later, to everyone's horror, it washed ashore near Tofino in my riding of Courtenay—Alberni. That spill was devastating, and it was considered small. Just months later, the Exxon Valdez oil spill released 257,000 barrels of oil, nearly 50 times larger, enough to contaminate virtually the entire length of the B.C. coast, and we know the impact it had on the north coast.

If the pipeline envisioned in the motion were built, up to 225 supertankers per year, each carrying up to two million barrels of bitumen, would move through narrow coastal channels and off the shore of Vancouver Island and the north coast. The scale of risk would dwarf both Nestucca and Exxon Valdez. A spill hundreds of times larger than Nestucca would be physically impossible to clean up along our remote, rugged coast, especially given the behaviour of bitumen itself.

The moratorium did not appear overnight; tanker restrictions had been voluntarily in place for more than 30 years before Bill C-48 ever became law. Industry, insurers, scientists and governments across Canada and the United States long understood just how sensitive, dangerous and irreplaceable this region truly is. Yes, the people who would be most affected have declared this position with unmistakable clarity for decades.

Today, Coastal First Nations, representing nine first nations along the north coast, the central coast and Haida Gwaii, has reiterated its nations' position as rights and title holders, in a firm and unequivocal statement that they will not consent to crude oil pipeline or oil tanker projects in their coastal waters. They have made it clear to Canada and Alberta that the project identified in the motion and in the MOU is the same pipeline carrying the same product to the same place. That was rejected in 2012 under the Harper Conservatives, and nothing has changed today with the Prime Minister and the Liberals.

At the same time, the B.C. Assembly of First Nations has passed a formal motion opposing the proposal and calling on all levels of government to abandon the project and to instead support sustainable first nations-led solutions that respect indigenous title and ensure the survival of the land and its people. The Assembly of First Nations has echoed that position nationally, stating clearly that economic incentives, co-ownership promises and piecemeal consultation do not replace free, prior and informed consent.

There is something else that has not changed: The science has not changed. It remains a scientific fact that bitumen cannot be cleaned up in marine environments. When it spills, it sinks and mixes with sediments. It coats the seabed, and it smothers salmon habitat, herring spawning grounds, shellfish beds and the foundation of the marine food web. There is no proven technology capable of recovering bitumen once it disperses under water. That is not speculation; that is what spill science tells us.

For Coastal First Nations, for British Columbia and for anyone who cares about fisheries and oceans, that risk is simply unacceptable. A single major bitumen spill on the north coast would wipe out sustainable fisheries, cultural livelihoods and marine-based economies that have been built over thousands of years.

Meanwhile, the coastal economy that first nations have built is not theoretical. It is real, it is growing and it is rooted in stewardship. Coastal First Nations has made it abundantly clear: It not interested in equity stakes in a bitumen pipeline or in financial compensation for catastrophic risk from a bitumen pipeline, and it has built its own sustainable economy that is working.

New figures from Coast Funds show that an initial $60 million in economic development capital has generated over $1 billion in regional economic impact, creating more than 1,400 permanent jobs and supporting over 140 businesses. This is prosperity rooted in conservation, renewable energy, ecotourism, sustainable fisheries and long-term community wealth, not short-term extraction and global speculation.

The Premier of Alberta's rhetoric about oil pipelines and tankers does not strengthen our confederation. The MOU that the Liberal Prime Minister has put forward is the same; it undermines our confederation by threatening the goodwill that first nations bring to major economic projects. Northwest B.C. alone represents roughly 40% of Canada's shovel-ready major nation-leading and nation-building projects, including LNG facilities, critical mineral development, port modernization and clean energy corridors. Coastal First Nations supports projects that respect its rights, protect the environment and share benefits fairly. Crude-oil tankers will never be part of that vision.

The motion before us and the MOU that the Liberals have put forward also claim that indigenous consultation must be respected, but let us be absolutely clear: Consultation is not the standard; consent is the standard. New Democrats unequivocally support free, prior and informed consent. Without the consent of indigenous rights holders, the project does not have legitimacy. Without consent, there is no reconciliation. The indigenous rights and title holders most affected by the proposal have already said no repeatedly, publicly and without ambiguity.

The opposition motion and the Liberal MOU further claim that the proposal involves so-called low-emission bitumen. We should be honest with Canadians: Bitumen remains among the most carbon-intensive forms of oil on the planet. Relabelling it does not change the climate map. Global heavy crude demand is projected to decline in the decades ahead.

The motion would pursue a project with no confirmed proponent, no secured market, no private financing and no consent from those whose territories would be at risk. Instead of inflaming regional division and undermining reconciliation, the federal government should be meeting directly and respectfully with Coastal First Nations and the Province of British Columbia. The Prime Minister promised that no project would be imposed on a province or on indigenous peoples. Both British Columbia and Coastal First Nations have said no. It is time to honour that promise, not weaken it under pressure.

New Democrats oppose the motion, and we will oppose it with a vote. We will vote against it because it ignores science. We will vote against because it ignores economic reality. We will vote against it because it undermines marine protection, climate responsibility and indigenous rights. We will vote against it because it puts ideology ahead of national unity and long-term prosperity.

Canada can and must do better than this. We can build a future rooted in partnership, sustainability and shared prosperity. Our workers deserve better than boom-and-bust politics, our ecosystems deserve protection, and first nations deserve respect, the right to consent and genuine nation-to-nation decision-making. For all those reasons we will be voting against the motion today and are against the MOU that the government put forward.

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite inspiring to see an opposition party or a party in the House that has absolute conviction and no equivocation of its principles. I applaud the member for that, and I really think it is a very important feature. This is unlike our Liberal colleagues, who are trying to play both sides of the fence, and I wonder how good that picket fence is feeling right now.

I wonder if the member could comment a little on that inconsistency and the uncertainty in the political and economic environment caused by the government's position.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it puts economic opportunities on the north coast and projects at risk. That is exactly what the MOU does.

The Liberals keep saying that there is no pipeline without support from indigenous nations and British Columbia, but the Building Canada Act, the one they keep citing and rely on, requires consultation only if nations say no. There is nowhere in the act that gives first nations the right to stop the project. It actually protects it.

Maybe the Liberals can explain why they talk about consent in public but remove it from the fine print when they put forward MOUs like the one they tabled, where it actually matters.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, climate change is causing droughts and natural disasters. It is also driving up the cost of living because of the financial repercussions involved.

Could my colleague expand on that?

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. The government spent $34.5 billion to buy the Trans Mountain pipeline. What has happened? There have been record profits: $6 billion in profit for Canadian natural gas, $5 billion in profit for Enbridge, $5 billion in profit for Suncor and $4 billion in profit for Imperial Oil, which laid off 900 staff and made $4 billion in profit last year. AltaGas made $3.5 billion in profit. They made all this money, but they cannot even afford to buy the TMX pipeline.

Now the government is putting forward the idea of building another pipeline on the backs of Canadians instead of investing in clean energy, which would be much more affordable and quicker in tackling climate change and would create a long-standing future for our country, a much more sustainable future with true energy security.

I really applaud the work the Bloc Québécois members have been doing in standing up for climate action. This is something we need to be happening right now. There are pipeline wars between the Conservatives and Liberals at a time of a climate crisis and wildfires raging out of control. It reminds me of an arms war, but instead it is a pipeline war in the middle of a climate crisis. Where is the action from the government?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, to be very clear, the memorandum of understanding is good for the environment, good for the economy and good for Canadian unity, and it demonstrates that federalism works well. The member made reference to TMX, which was negotiated with an NDP premier. Today we have a memorandum of understanding with a Progressive Conservative premier.

At the end of the day, when a party is in power, it has responsibilities to Canadians and to Canada. The MOU does just that. I am disappointed that the NDP opposes the MOU, which the member made very clear.

I am wondering if the member can express why the provincial NDP seems to support things like this but the federal NDP does not.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, actually the provincial NDP took the Liberal government to court. It tried to stop the Trans Mountain pipeline, for good reason: It did not make any sense. It still does not make sense. The federal taxpayer is on the hook for $34.5 billion to build that pipeline, and the government cannot find a buyer. What does the government want to do? It wants to build another one. We all know where this is going to go; it is going to end up on the backs of everyday Canadians instead of investing in real climate action.

The government members talk out of both sides of their mouth. They say that they are going to have consultation. Consultation is not supporting free, prior and informed consent. They talk about consultation, but consultation not consent. If they will stand in the House and say that they will support free, prior—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Pickering—Brooklin.

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Vancouver Quadra.

It is a privilege to rise in the House to speak to the motion put forward by the member for Battle River—Crowfoot on the Canada-Alberta MOU, building pipelines to Asia and the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act.

Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge that we are gathered on the traditional unceded territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin nation, and I would like to express my gratitude for the privilege of sharing this land with them on this very day. It is important to recognize that, across Canada, the lands, waters and ice are traditional territories of the first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. Indigenous peoples have cared for these environments for thousands of years, and their knowledge and leadership remain essential. Our journey toward reconciliation continues to be a priority for me, and it is one of the reasons I am in the House today.

Today I want to talk about the future, our future, and the foundation that the Government of Canada is building for a stronger, more sustainable Canada. It is a future that is not only net-zero but also full of new opportunities for clean, resilient and lasting growth, from such things as building new industries that anchor long-term jobs in every region and developing climate-smart infrastructure that saves money by avoiding costly disaster recovery. There are opportunities for workers and communities, such as thousands of skilled jobs for electricians, energy advisers, engineers and construction workers, as well as community-owned renewable energy projects that keep wealth circulating locally. There are opportunities for Canadian competitiveness through selling clean aluminum, low-carbon steel and sustainable forestry products. In other words, it will be a climate-competitive Canada.

I am talking about a Canada that leads the world by leaning into its strengths. I will put that in perspective. Countries around the world are making the transition to clean, low-carbon energy industries and technology. They are competing to design the cleanest technologies, produce the cleanest fuels and operate the cleanest industries. They are competing for capital, for talent and for innovation.

This transition is a revolution. It is reshaping trade, investments and jobs. It is changing pretty much everything: how we get around, with more public transit running on clean power and with more walkable, bikeable communities; how we heat and cool our homes, with heat pumps, better-insulated homes and smart thermostats that learn routines and reduce wasted energy; and how we work, build and power our country, with cleaner and more dependable electricity, solar rooftops and grids powered by wind, nuclear and storage.

It is impacting how we think about our sustainable future, with green mortgages, pension funds and savings plans investing in long-term clean growth, as well as how we connect with nature, with more protected areas, more urban forests and more opportunities for outdoor recreation close to home.

A net-zero future makes the cleaner choice the cheaper choice, the smarter choice and ultimately the easier choice. That is why making the foundational changes needed to build a net-zero future is economically smart and fiscally responsible. Moreover, it is essential for protecting Canadians and the places they call home. The bottom line is that addressing climate change is both a moral obligation and an economic imperative. That is why the Government of Canada released the climate competitiveness strategy in budget 2025.

The strategy positions Canada to seize the opportunities presented by the global transition to clean economies, by reducing our emissions and driving investments. It creates the clarity and condition for the investment needed to build an affordable net-zero future, a future in which Canadian businesses and industries are well positioned to compete and lead in the global economy, Canadians have the security of a strong economy and good jobs, and Canada leads in the global clean energy transition.

The climate competitiveness strategy is a central pillar of the government's plan to become the strongest economy in the G7. It is about building certainty for investors while continuing to take strong action to address climate change, building new infrastructure and major projects more efficiently while ensuring they contribute to a clean and competitive economy.

It is about supporting clean Canadian innovation, scaling homegrown solutions and capitalizing on projects that further Canada's standing as a clean energy superpower. It is also about exploring nuclear and renewable energy; investing in low-carbon fuels and initiatives aimed at improving the emissions intensity of the oil and gas sector; expanding into emerging opportunities such as critical minerals, carbon removal, resource sufficiency and high-value manufacturing; training workers to participate in these opportunities; and engaging with indigenous partners and rights holders as appropriate.

These are all investments in long-term prosperity. However, I want to be clear: Canada is not just entering this race; Canada is in this race with some of the smartest and most talented workers; some of the cleanest power, most unique energy and resource sectors, and world-class industries; and a strong domestic market in which Canadians can be their best customers.

In sum, Canada's climate competitiveness strategy aims to grow our economy, to build a stronger, more sustainable and more competitive Canada and create lasting prosperity. I will close with a picture of what Canada can look like if we stay the course. It is a Canada where we have clean power in our homes and air in our cities; a Canada where jobs in our communities are future-focused and where students can look forward to working in global leading industries; a Canada where indigenous engagement is rooted in respect, reciprocity and responsibility; and a Canada where climate action is a catalyst, sparking innovation, inspiration and investment.

This is the climate-competitive economy that Canada is moving towards. We are doing it by working hand in hand with indigenous governments, provinces and territories, industries and all sectors. Climate action is an opportunity for everyone. This is the Canadian way: co-operation, practical progress and determination with courage and confidence.