Debates of Jan. 27th, 2026

Opposition Motion—Canadian Economic Sovereignty

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, as this is my first speech of the year, I would like to welcome my colleagues to the House and wish them an excellent parliamentary session.

We are studying a motion to restore Canada's sovereignty vis-à-vis the United States. Pathways Alliance members account for 80% of oil sands production and are 73% foreign owned, 60% of which is American. These companies made $131.6 billion in profits, $79 billion of which was distributed to shareholders, 62% of whom are American.

Even so, people want to talk to us about sovereignty.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to remind the member that this country has what everybody wants. Beneath the ground, we have critical minerals and oil and gas. We also have the smartest people in the world to get that out, but we have a government standing in the way of all of that.

Yes, I would like Canada to be more resilient and sovereign. The best way to do that is to give the world what God gave us.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I also want to send some friendly new year's wishes, and I hope the 2026 season treats the member and her loved ones, and all constituents and Canadians, well.

I listened intently to the member's comments, and I think today's debate has been an interesting one. I know that we use references to the government under the leadership of former prime minister Stephen Harper when it is convenient, and I know that when members on this side use that example, Conservatives say that it was decades ago. I think we need to recognize that sometimes actions take time before we can reap some of the benefits or the challenges that come with them.

When the member refers to Canada's reputation on the international stage, I would like to hear the member's comments as to why Canada does not have a seat on the Security Council, because the first time we lost that seat in a decade was during the decade of darkness.

I think that this member is one who wants to see her constituents and Canadians succeed when she talks about co-operation. I want to see the same for the riding of Waterloo. I would like to hear her comments on that and whether she agrees with former cabinet minister James Moore's comments that the Conservatives need to have a real plan and that anger cannot be their platform.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will extend wishes to my friend across the aisle for a happy new year and wish a happy new year to her constituents.

When it comes to Canada's voice on the world stage, there is no question that over the last decade, we have lost the moral authority. We have let terror cells create a home, laundering money in our own country and intimidating our own citizens. We have lost our principles.

Foreign policy comes with moral clarity, and we have lost all of it under successive Liberal prime ministers. I would love to have the days of Stephen Harper back when it comes to foreign policy. They were when this country was respected.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, last week in Davos, the Prime Minister outlined his vision to restore Canada's position as a leading middle power in the world. In the prequel to that speech last October, he reminded a room full of young Canadians that it will take time and sacrifice to realize that vision. In both speeches, the Prime Minister framed the hardship we will face in Canada to realize that vision as unavoidable, temporary and noble. He promised to always be straight about the challenges we have to face and the choices we must make as a country.

The promise of the Prime Minister's Canada appears to be this: Things are going to be hard now, but worth it in the long run. If we just hold on, the future will be better. We will be an energy superpower, diversified abroad and strong at home. This message has gone over well with Canadians who have the assets to weather the coming storm, those seeking stability and soothing reassurance in turbulent times. However, for those Canadians who do not already own a home and those who do not already have those sustaining investments, those people, and especially our youth, are faced with a future that keeps moving further away.

For them, the struggle is not about great power rivalry or global supply chains. It is about rent that eats up more than half their paycheques, groceries that cost more every month and having two or three jobs that still do not provide enough to live on. For them, Canada has become a country where doing everything right no longer guarantees stability, let alone prosperity. It is a place where they are being told their sacrifice is the price of global leadership, the price of a new world order.

The question they are asking is, order for whom? For these folks, it feels like Canada is asking them to continually give things up, while asking very little of those who already have the most. They are asked to delay home ownership so asset values of current homeowners can be protected. They are asked to shoulder debt, taxes and rising costs in the name of an abstract national good that never quite shows up in their own lives. They are being told that what they are experiencing is inevitable, the fault of global forces beyond our control. They work, they pay, they comply and the promise of Canada feels increasingly hollow to them.

Across the board, our youth are the first generation who will be worse off than their parents. Their parents are the first generation that believe their children will not be better off than them. The most dangerous divide in Canada today may be between those who are willing to accept that and those of us who are fighting tooth and nail to change it. When a system only works if the next generation accepts less than the last, that system is not stable. It is living on borrowed time.

The Prime Minister speaks beautifully about honesty in foreign policy, about taking signs out of windows and about refusing to pretend that old systems still function as advertised. That same honesty is needed at home because we cannot talk about building strength domestically while an entire generation feels weaker every year. We cannot speak of resilience while young Canadians are one missed paycheque away from crisis. We cannot claim to be investing in the future while systematically pricing that future out of reach.

We are told that Canada must be outward-looking, engaged everywhere and invested in everything: trade deals, partnerships, defence commitments and global leadership. However, a country that is everywhere abroad and absent at home is not strong. It is distracted. Being principled does not only mean standing up on the world stage. It means standing up for the people who live here now, not just those who bought in decades ago. That is why the Conservatives have proposed a Canadian sovereignty act.

The rhetoric in the summer and fall sessions of the House seemed to pit Liberal ideas against Conservative ones: We could have the Major Projects Office to fast-track anointed projects, or we could repeal the long list of legislation that gets in the way of those same projects. Conservatives let the Prime Minister have Bill C-5, giving him the chance to show Canadians through his Major Projects Office that his big ideas about big government would do the trick for Canadians. However, the Prime Minister's words are moving faster than his work, turning the Major Projects Office into another bottleneck to prosperity.

After announcements in September, October and November referring two tranches of projects to the MPO, we have heard nothing. Referring a project to the MPO does not mean that it has been approved, and none of the potential projects of national interest have actually emerged from the black box of the MPO to be formally recognized by cabinet as such, which means that they are not yet, in fact, exempt from the federal laws holding them back.

This is where our Canadian sovereignty act comes in by getting government out of the way by repealing the federal laws that block development, incentivizing the provinces to fully open their markets to fellow Canadians, rewarding those who reinvest in the Canadian economy to stop the flight of capital from our country and ensuring continued Canadian ownership of Canadian innovations. We do not have to choose and we should not have to choose. We should be able to have the Major Projects Office and get government out of the way for the rest of us.

Younger Canadians are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for a fair deal, for a country that does not require them to sacrifice indefinitely so existing wealth can be preserved untouched, for policies that recognize housing is a place to live before it is an investment, and for a government that recognizes that security starts with food security at the grocery store and that economic strength is measured in whether people can build a life, not just on whether capital can move freely in global markets.

With the Canadian sovereignty act, Conservatives have taken the sign out of our domestic window on behalf of those without homes and on behalf of those without investments to protect from the changing world order, because those generations no longer believe the government's story about future prosperity. If Canada is serious about building strength at home, that strength must include our next generation. That strength must include those who are struggling, not as an afterthought, not as a talking point, but as a priority. We do not need nostalgia from the past. On that, I agree with the Prime Minister. However, we do need fairness and opportunity in the present.

Young Canadians are not turning away from this country. They are waiting for this country to turn back to them. If we want them to believe again, if we want them to invest their lives here, then Canada must stop asking them to carry the cost of stability in a disproportionate way. That is what living in truth looks like at home, and that is the path forward that actually lasts.

I say again: Canadians should not be forced to choose between major projects and getting government out of the way. They should be able to have both. That is why we have put forward a Canadian sovereignty act, and we call on all parties in the House to support it.

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

Madam Speaker, I have been thinking a lot about this line from the Prime Minister when he was in China, when he said we should take the world as it is, not how we wish it would be. I think the problem with that line and aspects of his discourse is that it ignores the capacity that we have to create the world we want, the power that our government should have to imagine a world that is not one in which, for instance, strategic industries are dominated by powers that are hostile to their interests.

The CCP has a long-term strategy to dominate strategic interests. That is a strategy that will go beyond, for instance, the term of any president or prime minister, most likely. In that context, we need to use the power we have to develop our own resources and to establish democratically controlled supply chains for critical commodities, including development here in Canada that will benefit our country.

I wonder if the member could share whether she agrees that the overly cynical or even pessimistic approach by the Prime Minister is not warranted when we have the resources and the capacity ourselves to help establish democratic domination of these critical resources.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have been thinking a lot about topics like this over the past weeks, and what I think this really reflects on is the concept of agency. Agency is one of the real things that divide us on this side of the House from our colleagues in government on the other side of the House.

We firmly believe in agency, and we can see it in this concept of the sovereignty act. We firmly believe that if we get government out of the way, the good people of this country have the ability to build their own lives, make their own decisions and move our economy and the Canadian dream forward. That is where we see hope.

On the other hand, the hon. members across the aisle tend to believe in larger institutions. They tend to believe in bureaucracy and in centralized control of things. I think this is one of the big debates that we are having in this House, and it is going to continue.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I find it quite surprising that the Conservatives are asking the government to get out of the way in order to ensure Canada's sovereignty. I would remind my colleague that the last oil and gas infrastructure project to be built was the Trans Mountain expansion. It collectively cost us $34 billion. No oil and gas company is willing to invest in oil and gas infrastructure because they know that it is not profitable in the long term.

This is even more shocking when you consider that 60% of the major oil companies are American owned. What my colleague is saying, ultimately, is that we should invest Canadian money to make profits for large American oil companies. Is that her view of Canadian sovereignty?

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, the whole thesis that the Conservatives are putting forward through this sovereignty act is the idea that we should stop the flight of capital outside of this country. We should remove the barriers to investment here, the things that cause Canadians to want to invest in other countries, and help bring that capital and investment back to Canada by removing the barriers to that.

That is exactly what we are trying to do.

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

Madam Speaker, I know the member does not necessarily want to talk about the past, but sometimes the past is a reflection of the current leader of the Conservative Party and what his mentality is. The Conservative Party, back in the day, did not progress the Canadian economy to the degree of recognizing that government involvement can make a positive difference and a positive outcome.

Can the member identify to me one provincial government that has adopted the principle that the Conservative leader has, which is for the government to just get out of the way? Does she not believe in national programs?

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think it is incredibly rich for the member opposite, who keeps referring to this as a new government, to look into the past to try to assume that Conservatives cannot change and that we cannot put forward new ideas. From a government with which we have offered to co-operate, it is especially distressing that he continues with the insults and the rhetoric and that he is not willing to work with us on this act.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, I just want to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country.

Our country's sovereignty is not a slogan. It is not a political catchphrase. It is not just a word. It is certainly not a potentially partisan marketing tool. Sovereignty is having the actual capacity to produce, decide, invest, protect the national interest and secure our shared future. It is a strategic construct complete with a strategic plan and a road map, none of which are anywhere to be found in this motion. It requires institutional architecture, architecture based, as I clearly stated earlier, on a very clear and precise road map and strategic plan to keep us on the specified path. It takes a leader's vision and long-term leadership.

The Conservative motion is purportedly about sovereignty, but it offers nothing in the way of vision, strategy or national undertaking. It is about dismantling things and bringing things to a sudden halt. It is about taking things away and asserting sovereignty by scrapping predetermined frameworks.

A nation does not become strong by destroying its structures. An economy does not become competitive by removing its foundations. A modern power cannot be built on the Conservative Party's regulatory improvisation. International and domestic investors do not invest in uncertainty. Domestic and international businesses do not thrive in chaos. Projects do not go ahead when a nation or a country is unstable. People, investors and businesses invest in clarity, stability, predictability and institutional confidence.

True sovereignty is not the absence of rules. It is the ability to build capacity, including industrial, energy, technological and digital capacities, along with digital sovereignty, especially given what we know now. I am referring to the rapid emergence and ubiquity of AI. Sovereignty also depends on food security, strategic capability and innovation based on research and development. Above all, what we want for our country is resilience.

We live in an unstable and fragmented world, marked by geopolitical shocks, trade wars, energy tensions, technological rivalries and climate change. I would, of course, like to return to the subject of artificial intelligence, particularly artificial superintelligence. Sovereignty is not just about the present. We preserve our history, we shape the present, but above all, we shape the future. We cannot prepare for the future by forgetting or neglecting our young people. What we want to leave to our young people and our children is, of course, a very stable climate.

The world is also undergoing industrial upheaval. We have seen this recently. In this world, sovereignty is not built through isolation. It is built through resilience, as I just said. This resilience affects industry, energy, the economy, technology, digital technology, strategy, and the food sector. Modern sovereignty is not about isolation. What the Conservatives are proposing today is isolation.

Modern sovereignty is the ability to be autonomous, but within a framework of interdependence. It is the ability to co-operate without depending on another country. It is the ability to trade without submitting. Our government rejects the false dichotomy between the economy and the environment. Obviously, we are building both together, because there is no future without awareness of our environment. We are accelerating projects. We are simplifying processes, reducing duplication, securing investments and modernizing our government. That is very important. In a nutshell, it is about optimization and efficiency.

We are building a national industrial strategy. We are protecting Canadian innovation. We are developing our energy capabilities. We are diversifying our trade. We are strengthening our economic sovereignty. Most importantly, and I cannot stress this enough, we are strengthening our digital and energy sovereignty. Modern sovereignty is not about returning to past models. It is not about clinging to 20th-century formulas. It is not about denying the changes that are happening around us. It is about looking to the future with clarity. It means thinking about geopolitics, the global economy, the energy transition, food security, digital security and urban security. It means thinking about innovation, our universities, and above all, digital sovereignty and resilience.

Modern sovereignty is the ability of a state to remain in control of its own choices in a constrained world. This requires what is clearly missing from this motion, and that is strategy, consistency, rigour, continuity, stability, governance, planning and, most of all, vision. Canadian sovereignty cannot be established with a motion. It cannot be improvised with a slogan. It cannot be built by tearing down existing frameworks. It must be crafted; it must be crafted day after day, investment after investment, reform after reform, institution after institution and partnership after partnership, something our Prime Minister accomplishes day after day.

It must be built with patience, rigour, vision and political courage. These four qualities aptly describe our Prime Minister. True sovereignty is the ability to withstand crises without collapsing. It is the ability to absorb shocks, protect our citizens, maintain social cohesion, preserve democracy and decide for ourselves.

What this motion proposes is not sovereignty, but political illusion, a mere promise in response to highly complex problems, an ideological answer to structural issues. Canada does not need slogans; it needs strategies. It does not need ideological simplification; it needs a firm grasp of the complexities. It does not need to go backward; it needs ambition. It does not need division; it needs national unity instead. Canadian sovereignty is not about turning back the clock; it is about looking forward to the future, a future based on resilience and, I repeat, competitiveness, innovation, sustainability, social justice, national cohesion, democratic stability and social responsibility.

I will close with this: Canadian sovereignty cannot be decreed; it has to be built, and that is exactly what our government is doing.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his extremely moralizing speech, although this House sometimes needs it.

Let us apply the same arguments used in support of the rigour shown by the Prime Minister recently. As a member for Quebec, does my colleague agree with the Prime Minister's historical accuracy when he rewrote the facts of the battle of the Plains of Abraham in Quebec City and its impact? Everyone unanimously spoke out against this and agreed that history cannot be rewritten. This is the same Prime Minister that my colleague just glorified today for his rigour on issues of national sovereignty. I think he needs to redo his homework.

Will my colleague help his leader get a better understanding of Quebec's history?

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for asking me to learn about Quebec's history. It is something that all of us really need to know. I am sorry, but I do not think I need to take any lessons from him.

That being said, I would simply like to say that we are not undermining any province in particular. No national project will be implemented without public approval, without the approval of Quebeckers, who put their trust in the 44 members on this side to represent them. We can represent them by knowing their language, knowing their culture and, above all, knowing their history.

[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.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, I believe that my colleagues on the other side of the House all have one thing in common. Their interpretation of our government's strategy is completely wrong. In their minds, we are stifling development.

On the contrary, each of our projects, each of our programs, is an exercise in making an informed decision. That does not weaken our economy. Quite the opposite. We are moving forward while thinking about how each element works within a system.

That is what is missing from this motion. This motion is meaningless. It lacks a clear vision and a strategic road map. That is what I am asking the opposition party to review.

If I could briefly return to the issue of carbon pricing, it attracts investment, creates jobs and makes industry far more competitive.

[Tim Watchorn, Liberal, Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC]

Madam Speaker, in addition to being an exceptional colleague, the hon. member for Bourassa is an expert in AI.

I would like him to explain a little more about how developing AI here in Canada will enable us to have a more sovereign country and what impact it will have on our national defence.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, I can answer with one simple statement. It is no longer a choice. These days, AI is part of a comprehensive, global infrastructure, similar to electricity and other such things. We need digital sovereignty that is based on the integration of AI. Rather than letting it integrate us, we need to decide how to integrate it and control it.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

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 Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, The Economy; the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona, Justice.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a real honour to rise today for the first time in the calendar year 2026 to speak on behalf of the constituents of West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country.

I wish all members of the House a very happy new year. I am looking forward to working in a spirit of collaboration as we get this year under way.

I very much hope things will be different this year. Certainly things started off the right way. I heard the shift in tone from the Leader of the Opposition in response to the seminal speech from our Prime Minister at Davos. I heard the very gracious words that he shared and the commitments to pass some very important pieces of legislation for Canadians.

When I heard that the Conservatives wanted to speak on a sovereignty act today, I was very excited to see if we could have a real debate about some of the major issues we have to grapple with to deal with the rupture in the global order and, frankly, the threat we have coming from south of the border, including among other things how that changes how we deal with our national security when we may not be able to rely on the United States.

How can we unite our nation? How can we work with provinces? How can we work better with first nations in a spirit of partnership? How can we build our ports to access new markets? How can we buy more Canadian products? How can we have a clear-eyed plan to drive prosperity not only today but also deep into the future?

However, much to my disappointment, when I actually read what was in the so-called sovereignty act, I saw that rather than dealing with these very important issues, we are getting a rehash of the same tired Conservative policy playbook that encompasses no more than a wish list of the oil and gas industry to gut Canada's environmental protections. Rather than making Canada more sovereign and looking into the future, what the Conservatives are proposing would actually further shackle us to the United States and a world that no longer exists. Rather than working to unite the nation, what has been proposed is to bully and steamroll all who disagree with them. We know that this plan has failed before and would fail again, but now is not the time to be going down that same road and playing these fruitless games.

I think it would be helpful to go through a number of points within the proposed sovereignty act to really point out what it means.

Among other things, the act proposes repealing the Impact Assessment Act, which, for those who do not know, is a piece of environmental assessment legislation that rationalizes the work that Canada needs to do to ensure that projects are going to mitigate the environmental impacts they have. It allows for better first nations consultation and in fact imposes strict timelines on government reviews of those projects. Frankly, since this legislation was brought in, the reviews of those projects have improved not only in quantity but also in efficiency. This is because what it replaced was the CEAA 2012 legislation, which was so poorly written that projects, after getting approved, would just find their way into the courts and be hung up for years and years.

When the Conservatives call the bill the “no more pipelines act”, I think it is really telling. They do not want to talk about what would replace it. If we do not have any environmental assessment legislation, how would we even look at any different projects? Would everything just get approved no matter what? Notably they do not talk about any of the other major projects we have that could really grow our prosperity. There is no talk of things like a national electricity grid and what that could do to open up prosperity in many parts of the country, reduce electricity costs and open up new sectors.

The next act the Conservatives propose repealing is the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act. This piece of legislation, which was enacted in 2018, just formalizes what has been a half-century-long agreement of Canadian government after Canadian government. It is in place to do something very important; it is about making sure we are protecting some of the most dangerous waters in our entire country. When the Conservatives talk about why it needs to be repealed, they always bring up the northern gateway project, as if the act were the piece of legislation that caused that project not to proceed. In fact that project was so poorly put together, and the consultation with first nations was so deficient, that nine first nations challenged it in court and had it overturned.

When Conservatives say that just removing these pieces of legislation would open up our economy and drive it forward, what they are really hoping is that if we do not consider the environment at all and completely put aside very real concerns that indigenous rights holders have, we can move ahead with these projects.

The next thing the Conservatives propose taking out is the federal industrial carbon tax. This has been in place in many different forms throughout our country. The first to bring it in was the Province of Alberta. It has led to tens of billions of dollars in investments in projects that have decarbonized our economy in really important growing sectors, as well as to finding ways to make our products less carbon-intensive, in many cases at the lowest possible cost.

To think that taking the tax away would make our economy more sovereign could not be farther from the truth. By getting rid of this type of mechanism, the country would face limited market access to the European Union as it brings in a carbon border adjustment because it wants its industries to be able to compete around the world. It has this new mechanism it is bringing in starting this year, and it is not the only country. The U.K. is proposing to bring one in. Australia, Taiwan and other countries are looking to do the same. What this would tie us to are countries that do not want to take action on climate.

The Conservatives also propose getting rid of the oil and gas emissions cap, but this is not even currently in place. Next they propose getting rid of the federal electric vehicle sales mandate. This is a mechanism that was put in place to ensure that Canadians can access electric vehicles. We see around the world that the adoption rate of electric vehicles is going through the roof. In Nepal it is 76%. In China it was 50% last year. The big barrier we have in Canada is that people cannot access the types of electric vehicles they want to buy.

This mechanism is about ensuring that those cars are available, which also leads companies to invest in the charging infrastructure that makes it better for everybody who has adopted the technology. It is also about ensuring not only that can we buy those cars here but also that more and more of those cars are manufactured here. It is a key part. We know that a key ask of several of the United States automakers is to scrap this program, but that would be a big mistake and would reduce the choice that a lot of Canadians are looking for right now.

Next I want to talk about how the act would remove the federal plastics manufacturing prohibitions. It is important to call this what it is: It is about getting rid of the ban on certain single-use plastic items that were found to be harmful to the environment and to humans. These are things like plastic bags that are finding their way into our waterways, oceans and environment. How does it make our country more sovereign to have more and more waste in our environment?

Next the proposed act talks about removing the federal regulatory restrictions that impede communication and advocacy by Canadian energy companies. Again, it is important to call this what it is: It is about removing the so-called greenwashing provisions, measures that every member of the House voted in favour of just two years ago. These are measures to ensure that when a company makes a claim about itself, it has to be able to back it up with evidence. Essentially this is to deal with false and misleading advertising. Again, I do not see how our country would be more sovereign if we give the ability to companies to lie about the products and services they are putting out there. All it would do is make our country less competitive and give an unfair advantage to companies not taking the action they say they are taking.

There are many things I would like to talk about, such as how we can make our country more sovereign, how we can improve our national defence, how we can make sure we buy more Canadian and how we can improve our infrastructure. I look forward to questions from my colleagues to that effect.

[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?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, that gives me the opportunity to correct the record on a myth that has been put out there by many, including the Conservative Party.

For over 50 years, there has been a moratorium in place on the travel of tankers through the Hecate Strait. It has been in place since 1972. There are no American tankers going through that area. They go around Vancouver Island. Getting rid of the oil tanker moratorium would not mean that we would have more American—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, these are the facts we are dealing with. I would encourage my colleagues from across the way to have a look at that in more detail.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, as the day draws to an end, I must say I am a little disappointed. I have repeatedly asked some of my Conservative and Liberal colleagues to explain the logic behind wanting to build more oil and gas infrastructure, especially since we know full well that 60% of oil-producing companies are owned by American investors. They have made record profits in recent years, and 60% of those record profits are going into the coffers of American companies.

How can investing in these companies be seen as a way to reduce our dependence on Americans and respond to the tariff crisis?

Perhaps my colleague can enlighten me on this.