Debates of Jan. 27th, 2026

Opposition Motion—Canadian Economic Sovereignty

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned some facts that are accurate. Most shareholders in many of the biggest oil companies are based in the United States. If we want greater sovereignty, we need to think about the interests being served by the companies we work with.

However, I now know that we have a lot of opportunities to improve and diversify our economy. Our government has a plan to make this country a leader in clean energy. That is something we are going to do.

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

Madam Speaker, the history of environmental assessments in this country is one in which we had a predictable, comprehensive environmental review of projects in federal jurisdictions from about the mid-seventies until 2012, when Stephen Harper repealed the Environmental Assessment Act that had been put in place under Brian Mulroney. Since then, we have had a very discretionary projects-based review.

I voted against Bill C-69 because, although the Alberta premier at the time called it the anti-pipeline act, I said it could just as easily be called the pro-pipeline act as it uses such heavy reliance on ministerial discretion as opposed to what we used to have, which was criteria-based and predictable. If federal monies, federal lands or federal permits were to be used, we would do an assessment. I think we still have problems in this area.

I see the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country is prepared to respond.

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

Madam Speaker, I do not disagree with the premise of my colleague's question. I think there are actually a lot of ways we can improve how the Impact Assessment Act operates and how it can be more predictable. Frankly, there were a lot of recommendations that came from the task force that looked into it, and I think we should be looking at those right now.

The act has been in place for about five years. We are looking at reviewing the Fisheries Act. I think it might be time to do the same with the Impact Assessment Act.

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

Madam Speaker, the member spoke about bringing electric vehicles into Canada in his speech. I spoke with a car dealer last week who told me that his manufacturers have told him that they are not going to pay the surcharge that will be put on non-EVs. They will just not send them to Canada once the quotas—

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

I have to give the hon. member the opportunity to answer.

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

Madam Speaker, the number of EVs that have come have met the quota that we have for this year, so this is not a pressing issue right now, but we want to—

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

We are going to resume debate.

The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk has the floor.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Portage—Lisgar.

I am very pleased to take part in this debate, which is based on good will. Through this debate, we seek consensus in the House so we can move Canada forward to meet the challenges we face in 2026.

Now more than ever, Canada is at a crossroads. We need to make the right decisions, secure our autonomy and demonstrate our sovereignty. We have seen this government take some steps in the right direction. We have some suggestions for additional steps it can take, and we hope the government will take them to heart. That is why I am making the following remarks.

In my mind, this motion and debate are goodwill propositions to address the challenges that Canada has to face in 2026.

Canada has everything we need. Other countries would go to war to get the natural resources we have. We need to unlock the potential of our natural resources in a smart and respectful way. It must also be done autonomously, to ensure that Canada has autonomy when it comes to natural resources and energy. This will ensure that we are able to sell these resources abroad and get revenues that will help develop Canada and its natural resources to their full potential.

That is why our motion recommends certain courses of action to the government, such as repealing the legislation arising from Bill C-69 concerning assessments and other things. I would like to remind the House that I introduced Bill C-375 two years ago as a private member. My bill essentially called for one assessment per project. I was advocating for one project, one review, as opposed to two contradictory, competing reviews that overlap with one another. I wanted one project, one review. Even the Bloc Québécois agreed with our bill in principle. Unfortunately, the Liberals voted against it two years ago. We were amazed to hear the King repeat our argument word for word in the Speech from the Throne: “one project, one review”. As I was saying earlier, the government has taken some steps in the right direction, and this is one example. However, we believe that the legislation arising from Bill C-69 should be repealed.

The same goes for the oil tanker moratorium and the industrial carbon tax. I mention them because those paragons of virtue over there never stop lecturing everyone about the industrial tax. For nine years, these people called us Conservatives all sorts of names because we wanted to abolish the consumer carbon tax, but what did they do? A year ago, they changed their tune. They reversed course on the carbon tax issue and got elected because of it. It is wild, because they insulted us for nine years, and then they reversed course. Today, they say it is important to maintain the federal industrial tax because it is important for other countries. That is exactly what they said about the carbon tax for nine years, and then they scrapped it. They started down this road. Now they have to see it through.

There is also the emissions cap and the federal electric vehicle sales mandate. I will not go into details about my personal life except to say that I have been driving a fully electric car for about two and a half years now. Yes, a Conservative can drive an electric car. Guess what? I bought it used, so it was half the price. Even better is that I did not get a rebate, and there was no mandate in place. That is the responsible way to sell cars and to offer consumers electric cars. They are not for everyone, but if they meet certain needs and people want to get one, then there is no need for a mandate, as is currently the case. This is an effective demonstration.

We also have other proposals, such as rewarding provinces, businesses and workers who invest in Canada first. Our leader made a very positive case when he proposed eliminating the capital gains tax for reinvestments in Canadian businesses. That is a sound solution that deserves full consideration.

We also need to create a tax credit for reinvestment in Canada to spur domestic industrial activity. We should provide bonuses for interprovincial free trade as well. Canada is a world champion of free trade, and yet sadly, its 10 provinces have a lot of barriers. The federal government has removed some of these barriers at the federal level, but the provinces must be encouraged to do the same, which is why we are proposing free trade bonuses and measures to protect Canadian innovation. We have options and avenues that are worth considering. We have already offered our collaboration and support.

Some members will recall that, a few months ago, this government passed Bill C‑5, which sought to break down our siloed approach as a country in order to unlock our natural resource potential. Although it did not go far enough and should have gone further, we knew we were on the right path. That is why the official opposition offered its full support. Bill C‑5 includes the substance of Bill C‑375, which I introduced. The Liberals voted against my bill, while the Bloc agreed with the principle, which we now find in Bill C‑5.

Yes, some good things have been done, but the issue is that, if we want to face the challenges, we need to live up to our responsibilities. The Liberals got elected a year ago by saying “elbows up” to take on the White House. However, instead of “elbows up”, we have been seeing “thumbs up”. On two occasions, when the Prime Minister went to the White House, he ended up doing a “thumbs up” with the President. A few days ago, in Switzerland, he lectured everyone about standing up. Funnily enough, he did not talk about “thumbs up”. No, he did not talk about those things.

That is why consistency is important, especially since, unfortunately, we are not seeing results. According to the government, Bill C-5 would enable our country to realize its full potential as an energy superpower by creating new trade and energy corridors that would diversify our economy. That is all well and good, but those are words, not actions.

Now more than ever, we must find ways to assert our sovereignty, because Canada is facing major challenges, particularly with our neighbour, the United States, which brings to mind the very interesting and intelligent remarks made by President John F. Kennedy right here in the House of Commons on May 17, 1961.

He said, “Geography has made us neighbours. History has made us friends. Economics has made us partners. And necessity has made us allies.”

More than ever, we need to get back to this spirit, especially today. Why is this? It is because there are two anniversaries we can celebrate today. First of all, Mr. Jeremy Hansen is 50 years old today.

Mr. Hansen is the Canadian astronaut who will be going to the moon aboard the Artemis II mission, which, as we know, is American. Yes, Canada can work constructively with the Americans. I want to recount one of the great events in our diplomatic history. Exactly 46 years ago today, six American hostages were released in Tehran. We were the best of friends at the time. While the United States was facing the worst diplomatic crisis in its history because a country had allowed terrorists to occupy the American embassy and hold victims hostage for 444 days, Canada sheltered six American diplomats for 84 days in the residences of our diplomats, including, of course, Ken Taylor, the ambassador.

Canada has had some great diplomatic moments with the Americans. We all wish we could return to that, but it will not happen overnight. That is why, now more than ever, we must develop our autonomy in terms of our natural resources, our economy, our knowledge and our energy. The proposals we have made to the government today would do just that. We all want the House to continue on this path to ensure Canadian autonomy by adopting this motion.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech and for speaking English. I congratulate him on that. I have a fairly simple question.

If this motion is so important to the Conservatives, and if they believe it is important to Canada, why not introduce a bill? If the Conservatives want to promote certain priorities, they can introduce a bill, not just a motion on an opposition day.

Furthermore, why is there no mention of the importance of our farmers or of defence in general? Sovereignty is closely tied to the importance of investing in the Canadian Armed Forces. There is no mention of the importance of artificial intelligence, either. Many elements of economic sovereignty are missing from this motion.

Why do the Conservatives not introduce a bill?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to pay my respects to my colleague for the quality of his French. It is very good and it is a great inspiration for all members of this Parliament to learn the other language, because there is not just one official language, and all the official languages are at the same level. I appreciate his speaking in French, and I hope he will appreciate my answer in French too.

Last August, our leader unveiled the Canadian sovereignty act. As my colleague is well aware, an opposition party can introduce legislation, but it cannot have any economic impact. However, since the focus of our action is economic, the fine professionals who work in the House will tell us that, although we may be very nice people, our efforts will not work.

I see that my colleague is open-minded and is smiling. I hope he will convince all his colleagues to vote in favour of these positive measures to advance Canadian sovereignty and independence.

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

Madam Speaker, naturally, I will not congratulate my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk on his French, but I will nevertheless address the issue of sovereignty, a theme I like to hear him talk about. I will not talk to him about the Prime Minister's speech in Quebec City, because I know he cares a lot about historical accuracy, but I want to talk to him about electric vehicles, which he touched on in his speech.

In particular, I want to talk to him about the Prime Minister's commitment to rekindling ties with China by allowing imports of Chinese electric vehicles, which are clearly built by children, with no respect for human rights, and with parts of unknown origin, which will be able to control the data and perhaps even control the vehicle. Are we protecting our sovereignty by trusting Beijing's regime, as he likes to call it, or are we shooting ourselves in the foot when it comes to Canada's sovereignty?

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question, but also for his passion. He is very passionate whenever he tackles an issue head-on. I really enjoy working with him on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

The issue of electric vehicles from Beijing's regime does indeed raise many questions for us, both in terms of security and potential cyber-attacks. As I said earlier, I have absolutely nothing against EVs. I am living proof that Conservatives can support EVs, even without subsidies or mandates.

However, before looking at what is being done in China, why not also look at what is being done in Europe? Centuries-old companies, such as Renault, are currently offering electric cars that are extremely promising and that could be of interest to Canadians. The Prime Minister said in Davos that he was keen to increase trade with Europe. Why did he say that in Davos when, a week earlier, he was cozying up to the Beijing regime?

I think there is something inconsistent in the current Prime Minister's actions, and I thank my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue for pointing it out.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this place on behalf of the fine folks of Portage—Lisgar. After weeks in our own constituencies, all of us got the chance to come back with the country's pulse. The reality of what I heard from so many folks is that they are hurting. Their demand was that the time to act is now.

Families are anxious about tomorrow. Seniors are feeling incredibly squeezed by rising costs. Young Canadians feel exiled from the very future this country once promised. They are shut out of the housing market and left to wonder whether starting a family is just a dream for the few these days. Too many people are wondering if their jobs will still be there next month. Too many folks on work-sharing programs are wondering if that will end and they will be laid off in the very near future. Unfortunately, every headline brings fresh dread for so many folks, with economic storms brewing and troubles that seem to creep closer to our shores each and every day.

However, here is the truth that gives me hope: There is nothing so wrong with Canada that we cannot fix. Anyone who has listened to Conservative MPs, in particular our Conservative leader, knows exactly what I mean. We warned about these threats early and often. We raised the alarm on the housing crisis, which priced out an entire generation. We highlighted families being forced to choose between groceries and heating their homes. We pointed to the bureaucracy and red tape that have resulted in not being able to build anything on time or on budget in this country. Frankly, we were the canary in the coal mine. Today's big problems are not a surprise to us. We saw them coming, and unfortunately so many people are feeling it now.

Forces beyond our borders are real, and they are unpredictable, but that does not excuse the lost opportunity or the lost years of inaction here at home. I am not here to point fingers, but I am here to join a chorus of MPs who say we should all be focused on doing one thing, which is fixing the mess our country finds itself in. I stand ready to work with any member of any political party across this Parliament who is committed to the overriding goal of making life more affordable and making Canada a place where we can finally, once again, get big things built in this country. We must make Canada more self-reliant so we can withstand shocks, protect workers and thrive, no matter what comes our way.

Now, this is not about delivering lofty speeches or getting applause from elite circles in foreign countries like Switzerland. It is about the kitchen table conversations where families look at their bills and feel their stomach drop, wondering if they are going to be able to afford next week's groceries. It is about being in that grocery aisle, where basics like beef, coffee and fresh vegetables, things we once took for granted, now feel like luxuries for far too many Canadians. Food, fuel, heat and a roof over one's head have become things we have to fight for, month after month. It should not be this way.

Canada is rich in resources, rich in talent and blessed with a geography that should make us the envy of the entire world. Let us be honest: We are not reaching our full potential. It is the direct result of decisions and priorities that have drifted away from the people who uphold this country and who have built this country. We acknowledged the Prime Minister's speech last week. Portions of it mirrored proposals Conservatives have championed for years. We want to unleash our energy and streamline approvals for projects.

However, rhetoric, no matter how eloquent, does not lower a grocery price. Let us look at the hard numbers. Food inflation in Canada stands at 6.2%, year over year, as of December 2025, which is the highest in the entire G7. We have now been labelled the “food inflation capital”, an embarrassing moniker. That rate is roughly double what American families face, despite their own economic headwinds.

“Canada's Food Price Report 2026”, released just a few weeks ago, projects that the average family of four will spend $17,570 on food this year. That is nearly $1,000 more for the same groceries: in fact, with shrinkflation, often less groceries, on top of the food prices having risen and being 27% higher than they were just five years ago. Food banks tell an even more grim story. In March 2025 alone, nearly 2.2 million Canadians were recorded visiting a food bank. This is the highest monthly total ever tracked by Food Banks Canada. That figure has doubled since just 2019.

Employment is softening in precisely the sectors that keep Canada moving. Recent figures show that over 566,000 Canadians were receiving regular EI benefits, with trends pointing upward. The workers hardest hit are those in trades, transport and resource industries such as truck drivers, carpenters, welders, pipefitters and equipment operators. Thousands more EI claimants in these fields reflect layoffs and project delays. These are the people who build homes, move our goods and extract our resources.

At the root of much of this pain lies our inability to build. Major energy projects are talked about and just languish. The broken assessment process remains intact, with construction permit timelines ranking Canada near the bottom of most OECD nations. Projects that should advance in years stretch into decades, inflating costs, deterring investors and exporting both jobs and capital. Over the past decade, Canada has experienced substantial net outflows in foreign direct investment, and while the precise figures may vary, we are looking at hundreds of billions of dollars of lost or foregone capital as money flows to jurisdictions with clearer rules and faster execution. Half a trillion dollars, a made-up number, is real money that could have created well-paying jobs here in Canada and, in turn, good government tax revenue with a growing economy. However, it has been squandered. It has been wasted.

This is why we are moving this motion to advance a Canada sovereignty act. It is designed to reverse the exodus and to transform Canada into a destination for investment rather than a point of departure. Under this plan, individuals and businesses could reinvest capital gains into Canadian businesses without immediate tax triggers, ensuring that breakthroughs in technology, energy and manufacturing stay here instead of migrating south or anywhere else around the world.

Right now, when an entrepreneur sells a business they have built from nothing, a family parts with a property held onto for years or an investor finally realizes a gain from shares that they have been growing, the government steps in and takes a big slice. Capital gains tax hits hardest at the very moment when that new money could be turned into something new, something better, something Canadian.

The tax does not just take dollars; it stops people from selling and reinvesting here at home. It locks capital away in old assets instead of letting it flow into tomorrow's breakthroughs. Instead of turning those proceeds into expansion or new businesses, it just sits there or, worse, the seller moves the capital to places where the taxes on reinvestment are lower and regulations lighter. We end up losing new investments and the jobs that go with them, all of which could have stayed in Canadian hands for the next generation to inherit and build upon. This is not just about investors or balance sheets. This is about unleashing billions of dollars in capital that has simply been waiting for green lights from government. It is about turning Canada into the best place in the world, not just to live but to start something and to scale something.

We could also dismantle the bureaucracies that repeatedly kill major energy projects. This includes fast-tracking approval for a new Pacific pipeline capable of transporting one million barrels per day, diversifying away from our over-reliance on a single buyer. Permit processes would be improved, moving from decades to years through streamlined reviews.

Provinces that actually remove internal trade barriers that fragment our national market would receive direct financial incentives, finally creating the one functioning Canadian economy that we have always claimed we have. Critically, we would reduce taxes on the engines of growth. That includes taxes on labour, on new home construction and on energy development.

Beneath our feet lie abundant resources. We have timber. We have minerals. We have oil. We have gas, and we have soil that feeds the world. We should be darn proud of it and we should utilize it.

It has been said before, but I firmly believe it: We as Canadians have a history of rising to the challenges when the moment demands it. I will not settle for less, nor will my constituents. I want to prioritize the people who sent me to this place to represent them. Therefore, I invite every member of this chamber, every single one of them, regardless of their party, to join in our efforts and support this plan. This is not ideology. It is the audacity to admit that we can and we must do better, that we refuse to accept managed decline.

When we look back, let it be said that we did not shrink from the task and we did not settle for the status quo. We met the moment head-on because that is what Canadians do when the stakes are real. We owe them a country that lifts, that builds and that believes in itself again. If we have the courage to get out of the way and unleash Canadians, they will do the rest.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked a lot about initiatives that the government has put forward in the budget through the budget implementation act, Bill C-15, which is before members at the moment. One thing the member knows the importance of is international trade, so I was surprised that when I looked through the opposition day motion today there was not a single mention of diversifying trade markets and Canada's place in doing exactly what he talked about, fuelling and feeding the world.

The member represents Portage—Lisgar, and I had the opportunity to have a quick look. Over 5,000 of his constituents, according to the 2021 census, are involved in the agricultural industry. Peas, oil seeds and beef are major elements of the regional economy that he represents.

We were just in China. We established a trade arrangement. Does the member support the work the government has done to open up markets for farmers in his part of western Canada?

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's reviewing the important staples of production in my riding. I am an extremely strong supporter of international trade and of diversifying markets, and that is why I am so surprised it took the Liberal government this long to realize the importance of this. I look back to the Harper government and all of the trade deals. We signed trade deals with nearly two-thirds of the world's economy under the Harper government, but they have been allowed to languish under the Liberal government. They came in and signed the odd trade deal. Conservatives have consistently, for decades, forever, stood up for the importance of rural communities, agriculture and international trade, and I will say one thing: We always will, too.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am always somewhat astounded to hear my Conservative colleagues defend people who are struggling to make ends meet and talk about their unfortunate reality while continuing to lobby for an oil industry that is making huge profits, but whose profits are going into the pockets of Americans.

We are studying a motion that aims to restore Canada's sovereignty over the United States. However, Pathways Alliance, which accounts for 80% of oil sands production, is 73% foreign-owned, with 60% of that ownership held by Americans. Those folks made $131.6 billion in profits. They paid out nearly $80 billion in dividends, three-quarters of which went to foreign shareholders, including 62% to American shareholders. Then the Conservatives come here and talk about Canada's sovereignty.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this is a great opportunity. I want this country to have an economic boom again. The last time that happened was when our oil and gas and our resource sectors were booming, because all of those little people are the ones who reinvest in those companies. They reinvest in their pensions. We should be investing in ourselves. We should be darn proud of the people who are unfortunately now struggling because they were laid off from a sawmill or an oil field because of the policies of the Liberal government. I will stand up for them every single day, and that is how we are going to build this country back up again.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian sovereignty act is meant to get our economy going, but I listen to the Liberals, and we have listened to them for the last 10 years. They basically destroyed our economy. One would think they would support this particular act and our bill. I was surprised to hear their opposition to it, as I am sure the member is.

Our motion is supposed to repeal federal blocks and penalties to development and reward territories, provinces, businesses and workers who invest in Canada. For clarity, is Canadian sovereignty meant to help our economy or hurt it?

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has a recent track record of taking our good ideas, and we are giving them a whole pile of good ideas that, if implemented, would get this country back on track and have our economy thriving. We have heard a whole lot of empty promises, empty words and, unfortunately, a continuation of terrible results. That is why I am sure, when all of us went back to our ridings across this country, we heard the same thing: “I cannot afford to live anymore” and “I just want a good, stable, high-paying job. Why can I not find it?” The answer is 10 years of Liberal failure.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

A particular piece of legislation was referenced. I just want to ask if there is a piece of legislation called the Canadian sovereignty act.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

That is not a point of order, obviously.

It being 5:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is as follows. Shall I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

[Chair read text of motion to House]

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

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

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, January 28, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.