Debates of Jan. 27th, 2026

Opposition Motion—Canadian Economic Sovereignty

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

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives are trying to raise the issue of affordability with this motion.

The Prime Minister, along with the Minister of Finance, made a wonderful announcement yesterday, introducing the grocery and essentials benefit for Canadians, which will take effect on July 1. This is an initiative that is ultimately going to see hundreds of dollars going into the pockets of Canadians to help them at a time when there is a great deal of concern around grocery prices.

Can the government anticipate that the Bloc will support that initiative?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is the kind of measure that I feel is very effective in helping to combat poverty and address inflation among those who need it most. It is a very effective, direct measure that will truly help people. It proves that we are capable of agreeing with the government on some issues.

However, I am disappointed that the minority government is not seeking support from another party in the House to move all of its legislative measures forward, or at least pass them one at a time. That is the mandate the people of Canada and Quebec gave the government. They asked it to come to an agreement with another party to move its legislative measures forward.

It seems the government would rather poach Conservative Party members to buy or build a majority. In my opinion, this goes against the democratic opinion that was expressed in the last election. The Liberal leader should start talking to the leaders of other parties so that the government can govern as the people want it to.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be back in the House. Unfortunately, as my colleague said, today has a real Groundhog Day feel. Clearly, the true intention of this opposition day is to pad the already overflowing coffers of Canadian oil and gas companies. Are they actually Canadian? I will get to that.

The subject of the motion is something we have been talking about for ages. Essentially, it would grant oil and gas companies' every wish by completely doing away with what little remains of the previous government's already inadequate measures to fight climate change. The truth is that the Liberal Prime Minister spent a year sabotaging his own political party's feeble environmental legacy, and now there are hardly any climate policies left. Basically, what we have here is an intention to fulfill oil and gas companies' every last wish.

We all remember that things got off to a Trump-style start. When the Prime Minister took office, his first order was to abolish carbon pricing for individuals, which is completely contrary to the Paris Agreement. Like Mr. Trump, the government is turning its back on the Paris Agreement. After that, everything fell apart as the federal government scrapped one after another of the country's climate policies.

The Conservatives were actually dismayed when the Liberal Prime Minister's platform in the last election mirrored their own playbook: slashing carbon pricing on polluters, including major polluters such as big Canadian oil and gas companies.

The irony is that over 60% of Canadian oil and gas companies' assets are held by U.S. investors. What the Conservatives are proposing, and what the Liberals are doing, is to claim to be fighting against U.S. economic imperialism while actually rolling out the carpet for Mr. Trump's billionaire friends and goosing the profits of these largely foreign-owned companies. For them, Canadian sovereignty means making it easier to transfer money from Canada and Quebec to the U.S. to boost companies' already excessive profits. Now the Conservatives are calling for the repeal of federal measures that they say are blocking or penalizing development in Canada. Members should know that development has been picking up speed since the Liberals came to power.

Let us take a closer look at what our Conservative friends are proposing. They are calling for the Impact Assessment Act to be repealed. I do not think our colleagues have been paying close attention to what has happened since the current government came to power. The government has passed Bill C-5, which allows it to suspend at least 10 acts and seven regulations, including some environmental ones, which means it can circumvent environmental assessments. There is no need to even repeal the Impact Assessment Act, since it has already been partially done. The government gave itself the power to do that.

Let us take a look at Bill C-15, the budget implementation act. It allows any minister to suspend any legislation under the guise of innovation. This has already been done. What the Conservatives are asking for has already been done by the governing Liberal Party, for the benefit of oil and gas companies, as I said, to expedite approvals for this industry's projects.

The other demand in the Conservative motion is to repeal the west coast Oil Tanker Moratorium Act. I could talk about how appalling it is to call for a moratorium to be repealed in order to allow oil tankers to pass through a marine conservation area. Obviously, that would be environmentally risky, but it is also a complete violation of the rights of the first nations that have called for the moratorium to be upheld, because they do not want oil tankers on their territory. However, the federal government has already committed to building an oil sands pipeline that could carry a million barrels a day to the west coast for export, and the pipeline would pass through this area. Evidently, the government is already willing to do what the Conservatives are demanding. Bill C-5 is there to make it easier.

The Conservatives are also calling on the government to do away with the federal industrial carbon tax. I am pleased to tell them that the federal government is already working on that. Alberta backed down and has not raised the carbon price for its companies. The offset price is currently $25 per tonne in Alberta, whereas the carbon price in Canada is supposed to be $95. The federal government is letting Alberta do whatever it wants and is not forcing the province to raise its price on carbon. What is more, we know full well that the MOU between Alberta and Canada will weaken industrial carbon pricing policies, so once again, that wish has already come true.

Our Conservative friends are calling on the government to do away with the cap on oil and gas companies' polluting greenhouse gas emissions, but the government has already promised to do so under the Canada-Alberta MOU. That wish has already been granted. Is it a responsible thing to do? Does it make sense? From a climate perspective, it does not make any sense to impose zero constraints on the biggest polluters in the country, on the sector that is the largest polluter in the country, such as the oil sands, which emit as much greenhouse gas emissions as all of Quebec. The government repealed those regulations, but the Conservatives have obviously not realized it yet, because they are asking again for it to be repealed.

They are also calling on the government to remove the federal EV sales quota. The federal government suspended that EV sales quota just last fall. It is no longer forcing Canadian manufacturers to offer the public EVs or to offer a bigger supply of more affordable vehicles that would free them from the need to use gas. It has already suspended this quota, with no indication as to when it will be reinstated. We do not know for sure, but we strongly suspect that it could be significantly watered down, because Ontario is unequivocally demanding an end to measures like this. Western Canada's oil companies are calling on the government to drop such measures. As we have seen, the federal government has even abandoned the EV buyer incentives.

The government is already on track to fulfill the oil and gas companies' entire wish list, but my Conservative colleagues have failed to realize that almost all the climate architecture and measures put in place by the government have been dismantled since the Prime Minister took office. Of course, I will not even mention the fact that Canada is still not allowed to import European electric vehicles under the pretext of safety. This puts these far less expensive and more technologically advanced vehicles out of reach, and it enables the government to shield Canadian manufacturers, which rank among the worst in the world when it comes to electrification and which are slowing the adoption of electric vehicles across this country.

My Conservative colleagues are also calling for the federal plastics ban to be lifted. Of course, 99% of plastic is produced from oil and gas. This is a potential market for oil and gas companies. It is easy to see why our Conservative colleagues are pushing for plastic production bans to be lifted, even though the world is heading in that direction and even though the international community is working toward a global agreement to get rid of plastic. Plastic poses serious risks to human health and the environment, and it is one of the world's fastest-growing sources of greenhouse gas pollution. Plastics are what oil and gas companies are counting on to keep making profits.

Well, I am pleased to inform my Conservative colleagues that the government is already backtracking on this. Canada was supposed to implement an international export ban on single-use plastics in December, but the government backtracked in the fall. Once again, the government is granting oil and gas companies' wishes before my Conservative colleagues even realize that it is doing exactly what those companies want.

The other thing my Conservative colleagues want is the removal of federal regulatory restrictions that impede communication and advocacy by Canadian companies. Basically, they want to eliminate rules that prohibit greenwashing by oil and gas companies. Once again, I am pleased to inform my Conservative colleagues that, in the latest budget, the government made it clear that it intends to soften anti-greenwashing laws, even though those laws protect consumers and ensure that they get the truth about how oil and gas companies are performing. Everyone knows they are among the world's worst offenders when it comes to telling the truth.

Unfortunately, this day is completely pointless. This is, yet again, what oil and gas companies want. They have gotten almost everything they want. When are we going to talk about real solutions to get off fossil fuels, which cause climate change, underwrite war, destabilize Quebec's economy, drain our wallets and escalate extreme weather events that are extremely costly to Quebeckers, their health and their economy?

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the recent agreement reached with the Chinese government to allow 49,000 electric vehicles to enter the Canadian market.

Does he think that is a good idea? Does he think Canada will be able to derive economic and environmental benefits from that agreement?

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is important to understand that any discussion about bringing Chinese electric vehicles into Canada is really about distracting from the fact that Canada is backsliding when it comes to vehicle regulations and incentives for purchasing electric vehicles. The government no longer wants to force Canadian manufacturers to produce more EVs.

When it comes to Chinese electric vehicles, it is important to understand that the technology is much more advanced, that Canada is lagging behind, that Canadian manufacturers are lagging behind and that 50% of all new vehicles sold in China are electric. Still, we believe that bringing in these vehicles without considering the risks associated with espionage, the fact that China is engaging in foreign interference, the fact that China uses forced child labour and a type of modern slavery and that China does not respect human rights means that Canada is signing an agreement without taking any action against forced labour, for example, as the Bloc Québécois had proposed in a bill. It is important to be careful about that.

We have to wonder why the government did not act first by allowing European EVs into North America. These vehicles are less expensive and more technologically advanced than those of Canadian manufacturers. This would also help lower the cost for consumers who are interested in these vehicles. However, the federal government is not allowing them to enter the country. That is the real scandal, and it is yet another major setback from a climate perspective that has a huge impact on the economy and on consumers' wallets.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, would my hon. colleague not recognize that his rhetoric in the last speech is maybe a little antiquated, as the world is moving away from the concerns around climate change and is more concerned about human poverty and human suffering? Even Bill Gates has moved away from this. I am just wondering if he recognizes that.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, unlike the Conservatives, we believe that it is possible to grow the economy, improve people's quality of life and fight climate change.

What they want is to get rid of all climate measures. This attitude is completely irresponsible and worthy of the biggest climate deniers, given that we know full well that climate change still exists.

Instead of saying that we need to scrap all environmental protections, what I want to hear them say is what we could do to break free from oil and gas and improve the financial situation of Quebeckers, who spend more than $10 billion a year on oil and gas that needs to be imported. Instead of doing that, we could be electrifying our transportation, sending the money to Hydro-Québec and generating profits that could be invested in health care, education, roads and improved public transit, for example. There are plenty of solutions out there, but the Conservatives would rather turn a blind eye.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate my colleague and friend for his incredible demonstration of how the Liberal Party's backtracking on environmental measures shows that we have two parties that are two sides of the same coin. Almost everything that today's motion calls for has already been done by the current Liberal government or is in the process of being done.

I would like to ask my colleague a question about the fact that the World Bank has identified 73 carbon pricing mechanisms in 53 countries. To my knowledge, no country has backtracked on these mechanisms except Canada, under the current government.

What message does this send to the international community about the effort it takes to care for the planet?

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think that the message is very clear, from both the Conservatives and the Liberals: They want to impose as few regulations and constraints as possible on oil and gas companies. They want to increase oil and gas production, and they want more new pipelines.

The idea of abolishing or weakening industrial carbon pricing would be a major setback. It flies in the face of what we should be doing and what economists are telling us. If the big polluters are not going to pay for pollution-related impacts, then the cost will be passed on to consumers, to Canadians and to Quebeckers. That is what they really want: the oil and gas companies spending less and the public spending more.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga.

In the coming months, the world will be watching a mission to space called Artemis II, the first crewed flight of NASA's Artemis program, that will fly around the moon. It is an incredible time to be alive, that we can witness this iconic moment of human innovation in real time. For Canada, this is not just another launch. It is a national moment. For the first time, a Canadian astronaut, Jeremy Hansen, will fly as part of the crew. Canadian space robotics will be part of this visionary pursuit, and Canada's role will, once again, prove something we already know: When this country sets a clear objective and aligns its talent, capital, innovation and institutions behind it, we can compete with anyone.

We have done this before. Canada became, in fact, the third spacefaring nation in world history in 1962 with the Alouette-1. We became a world leader in space robotics with the Canadarm in the 1980s, so trusted that this innovation in robotics became indispensable to our allies. Today, through our contributions to the Artemis program, particularly Canadarm3 for the lunar Gateway, Canada has secured astronaut flights and meaningful roles in the next era of space exploration.

Let me say this clearly at the outset of this debate today on our important opposition motion on sovereignty, and economic sovereignty therein. Canada can build, we can invest, and we can lead. However, there is a hard truth in this. Too often, we are not translating our capability into lasting national strength. That is why I want to focus my remarks today on a critical part of our motion: protecting Canadian innovation and requiring the Minister of Industry to present plans to Parliament to keep Canada's inventions, discoveries and innovations from being sold off to other countries.

Right now, Canada is not building enough national champions. We are too often building sales listings, for example, that other countries come and take their pick of. Canadian taxpayers fund the research that trains the talent and creates highly valuable ideas and inventions. In other words, that is Canada's intellectual property. At the most important stage, when firms need to scale, when they should be growing into companies with hundreds, if not thousands, of employees with good-paying jobs, Canada's business environment too often nudges them toward selling, relocating or being absorbed by larger foreign competitors. We fund the discovery here, but the long-term prosperity goes elsewhere. Time and time again, this is happening. This is not an accident. It is a predictable outcome of a policy environment that is fragmented, slow and largely indifferent to the results that it funds.

The Business Council of Alberta has noted the problem with high taxes on capital combined with regulatory friction. We hear this all the time from our business leaders: High taxes and high regulation are the biggest problem in Canada. They reduce incentives for firms to reinvest and grow domestically here at home. For many Canadian start-ups, the problem is not that they want to leave Canada, but the gravitational pull of a faster, larger American economy, one that actively attracts talent, capital, and intellectual property and jobs, is just too inviting. With government inertia in this country, it is just too tempting to go down there, where it is more rewarding in many ways.

Keeping innovation in Canada is not just an academic exercise for discussion. Our Canadian innovation is our economic power. It determines whether Canadians earn high wages. It determines whether our communities grow or are hollowed out, and whether this country controls the industries that underpin its security and prosperity.

When we talk about sovereignty in 2026, it is not just about our borders or our territory. Innovation sovereignty comes down to three things: who owns the patents, who controls the data and who builds the capabilities here at home. Whoever owns those things owns the future tax base, owns the high-skilled jobs and leverages that in our trade negotiations, for example. That all goes together. Without sovereignty and innovation, we cannot be sovereign in our economy.

I have spent the last eight months as Canada's industry critic meeting innovators across this country: builders in aerospace, advanced manufacturing, AI, robotics, defence and advancing technologies. Their message is remarkably consistent regarding the problems that Canada is facing. They want to scale in Canada, and they want to hire more Canadian workers, but our system is working against them.

In fact, Canada has well over 100 federal innovation programs spread across various departments and agencies. Of course, each was created with good intentions by some minister, but together they form a system that is busy without being very strategic. They are not aligned. They seem very generous, but in fact, they are not disciplined at all toward a strategic goal. Governments measure success by announcements and spending, by how many press releases they do, not by whether Canadians can pay their bills, afford their mortgages or have confidence that their children will have more opportunities and a better life than they do.

The link between innovation policy and everyday life is, of course, productivity, which we hear a lot about these days from economists. The Bank of Canada, for example, has been clear that Canada's productivity problem has reached emergency levels. Governor Tiff Macklem warned that unless we change course, Canada's standard of living will be lower than it otherwise would have been. We will be poorer if we do not change course, which is a pretty drastic message from the Bank of Canada governor.

The deputy governor, Nicolas Vincent, reminded us that Canada's affordability problem is fundamentally a productivity problem, because the only sustainable way to raise incomes in this country is to raise our productivity. However, productivity is not about working harder, which I think is what a lot of people think when they hear that word. It is in fact about whether workers have the capital and the advanced technologies to produce more and work less to create more value more easily.

Right now Canada's productivity is trailing that of the U.S. by 30%, and the gap is widening. Canadians can work just as hard and be just as educated, and still fall behind because our system does not support investment and scale, and that is where innovation policy becomes central. It is not because Canada is lacking ideas; we have so many ideas and much talent, but we are lacking focus and ownership over those ideas, especially in the long term.

Governments announce many programs, launch consultations and publish frameworks, but our outcomes have not improved. For example, Canada ranks last in the G7 for turning innovation inputs into economic outputs. More than half of industry-directed intellectual property generated at Canadian universities is owned abroad, for example, which is pretty shocking. Once intellectual property leaves, it rarely comes back, which means other countries are being enriched by our talented idea creators.

This problem is especially clear in strategic industries like space and aerospace. These are not “nice to have” science projects; they are critical in the domestic and international terrain that we are seeing changing at a geopolitical level today. They underpin communications, navigation, wildfire monitoring, Arctic domain awareness, disaster response and national defence, and they are central to NORAD modernization and allied security. If Canada cannot build, own and control these capabilities, we become dependent on other countries for functions essential to our sovereignty, which is something Canadians have become acutely aware of in recent months. That is why space, for example, is a powerful indicator of what Canada must and can in fact do better.

As shadow minister for industry, I have seen these capabilities first-hand. I have toured Magellan Aerospace in Winnipeg, where skilled Manitobans build critical components for the world's best fighter jet, the F-35. Here in Ottawa I visited Mission Control, a Canadian company developing lunar rover capability. It is quite amazing. These are the kinds of innovations that strengthen Arctic research and security, and they secure maritime safety and really the role of Canada in the emerging space domain, which is critical for our national security. We have the talent, we have the capability and we have the ambition, but what is missing is a federal innovative program and framework that really treats sovereignty as the objective, not an afterthought.

This brings me to part c of our Conservative motion today. It would require the Minister of Industry to present plans to Parliament to keep Canadian innovation in Canadians' hands, which is really not a radical concept. In fact, I would argue it is the responsible thing that the Liberals should be doing right now. It asks essential questions: What technologies must we be controlling? What supply chains must be anchored here? What capabilities are critical to economic resilience and national security? Importantly, how do we keep these innovations here in Canada now and in the long term? Without any answers, innovation from the government becomes a scattershot plan such that we are working harder but not together.

The motion also recognizes that innovation cannot scale without capital: without more money, so to speak. That is why part b proposes a Canada first reinvestment tax credit, which would defer capital gains when the money is reinvested in Canadian businesses and productive assets. If capital stays in Canada, innovation has a better chance to scale here rather than leave to the U.S., and it creates more good jobs, higher wages and more opportunities for our kids. This matters, because investment per worker right now in Canada is half that of the United States. William Robson of the C.D. Howe Institute told the industry committee that U.S. firms invest roughly three times as much per worker. This needs to change if we are going to secure our economic sovereignty.

To be clear, the tax measure must support a larger strategy. Tax policy alone cannot fix a system that lacks focus. The central point of the motion is that Canada needs an economic sovereignty strategy that prioritizes keeping Canadian innovation in this country. We cannot keep funding innovation and exporting our values.

When Artemis II launches, Canadians, especially young Canadians, will be watching and inspired. These are the future innovators of our country. We need to make sure that they can produce amazing jobs and innovation for today and into the future, and our motion is a central part of making that happen.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, in the 2021 election, the then leader of the opposition ran under a platform that said, “We’ll finalize and improve the Clean Fuel Regulations to reduce carbon emissions from every litre of gasoline (and other liquid fuels) we burn.... This will generate emissions reductions at lower cost, and protect Canadian jobs”.

Since the finalization of these regulations in 2022, they have driven billions of dollars of investments and created thousands of jobs across Canada. Where did the member of Parliament, who supported these regulations and Canadian farmers, go, and what have they done with them?

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am a bit perplexed by the question. The member is talking about something that came out five years ago in a platform, under much different circumstances than today. I find it interesting that she is not interested in talking about Canadian innovation and how to safeguard jobs today and into the future and that she is not asking about what the Conservative ideas are; there are many more than the ones I have talked about, which would support the government's efforts, really improve them and deliver actual results to secure Canada's future.

It is just interesting that the member is looking back several leaders ago and several elections ago, five years ago in fact. I find it perplexing that she has nothing to say about improving Canada's jobs, wages and innovation today.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the polluter pays principle, which requires polluters, particularly oil companies, to bear the costs associated with managing the effects of the increase in greenhouse gases they produce.

As we said earlier, these companies rake in over $130 billion in profits, 60% of which goes to the U.S. Instead of helping to ensure that these companies pay for all of the environmental disasters we are seeing, which cost taxpayers huge amounts of money, the Conservatives would rather help these companies lower their costs by doing away with the industrial carbon tax, for example. This tax enables the government get back a bit of money that it can use to cover some of the costs of climate change. In short, the Conservatives are supporting the revenues of these companies, which privatize their profits, while leaving the public to deal with the consequences. It is up to taxpayers, the public, to pay for the negative effects caused by these companies.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, we hear some of these questions, and frankly I have been hearing them for years: “Make polluters pay.” It is veiled language for making families pay more for food, transportation and home heating. That is what people need to understand. When folks in this place talk about making polluters pay, they are talking about us and about our constituents. They are talking about the seniors who are struggling to afford food, because our main fuel, oil and gas, is what heats most of our homes in Canada. It is what the farmers use to produce food. It is what the truckers use to ship the food to the manufacturing facility. It is the fuel the manufacturing facility uses to make goods that we buy at the grocery store. It is the fuel that fuels the grocery store to keep it heated and cooled.

The main source of our energy, the pollution that they are talking about, is the reason that we can heat our homes and eat the good food that we have. I encourage people not to be fooled when they say, “Make polluters pay.” They are talking about everyday families' paying more for transportation, heating and food.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate being in the chamber to hear the speech from the hon. member from Manitoba. She has done an excellent job at the industry committee.

In her speech, the member touched upon the need to have more Canadian innovation, particularly Canadian patents that are held in Canada. I know of several entrepreneurs who have told me that it can be years for the patents office, which has one job, to approve patents that can be used here in Canada. Entrepreneurs said that many of them will go to the United States instead, not because they do not want to have the IP here in Canada but because they get protections immediately because the United States has a faster process.

Does the member believe that the minister responsible should make this her job, in order to fix that one job the patent office has, which is to approve patents that are worthy?

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's feedback and his question. It is very critical when we are talking about innovation policy and keeping our ideas, which the taxpayer often funds to the tune of up to $15 billion in this country. We are funding innovation through our SR&ED tax credit and through university funding, yet over half of university funding for innovation goes to enrich American and other countries' economies.

When we talk about patents, Canada has in fact some of the slowest patent approval times in the western world, and there has really been no progress on this from the Liberal government in the last decade. Therefore, if we are going to improve safeguarding of our own innovations, it starts with investing in improving our patent speeds. We have to safeguard these if we are going to have an innovative future in Canada.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to give my hon. colleague some good news. Some of the things she talked about, in terms of driving the economy forward, actually reside in Bill C-15, which is still before Parliament. I would encourage the member and her Conservative colleagues to work collectively with the government to advance those measures.

The question I have for the hon. member is this: She represents a rural riding. She has a lot of farmers in her riding. She talked quite negatively about the engagement of the trade arrangement that the government has established with China, which is removing tariffs from five billion dollars' worth of exports that are being tariffed right now. That matters for the prairie provinces; that matters in Atlantic Canada on seafood. We do not disagree that, of course, the United States will remain an important trading partner, but this government is looking to diversify.

Does she really believe from her position in the Conservative Party that we should not have done this for Canadian farmers, that we should not have opened up markets with the second-largest economy in the world? Is that her position?

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

Mr. Speaker, the government has had 10 years. This is too little too late. It is pitting province against province and sector against sector. With all due respect, it has been a year. If we want to talk numbers, the current deficit has doubled and food inflation is the worst in the G7. If we want to talk crime, Liberal bail continues to release violent repeat offenders. No pipelines have been approved. New and increasing tariffs are shutting down mills, factories and businesses across the country.

If the member thinks I am talking negatively, it is because we have a really dire situation here in Canada, and something needs to be done about it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on something in the Conservative motion.

The motion talks about providing free trade bonuses to remove internal trade barriers, but what are these barriers if not each province's respective language laws, environmental laws, public rules, workforce training and labour standards?

This is basically a direct attack on the sovereignty of the provinces, which are supposed to be sovereign in their areas of jurisdiction.

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

Mr. Speaker, I mean no disrespect, but we are talking about the opposition day motion for a Canadian sovereignty act. This would touch energy, the economy and the environment. The bottom line is that we need to cut taxes, unlock investment and let builders build.

Canadians have no appetite for partisanship and throwing stones both ways. We need to get rid of the politics and partisanship. We need pragmatic plans that restore and support economic sovereignty here in Canada.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have said this is the time for diversification. I hate, as much as anybody, the “I told you so” phrases, but I remember back in 2007 when Stephen Harper said we needed to diversify our markets. He then became prime minister and signed 43 free trade agreements around the world, built pipelines and pursued pipeline projects to both the west and east coasts. The time for diversification was decades ago.

I am wondering if my hon. colleague has some comments about that.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have to recognize that Canada and the U.S. still have the largest bilateral trade relationship in the world. We have been diversifying with other nations for many years, long before the current government came into play. Diversification does not need to be an either-or. We do not need to stop international trade with the U.S. We need to restore and reinvigorate that relationship while, at the same time, fostering the new and current trade relationships we have with other countries.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech, and I think the member is making a false dichotomy. I think we can streamline the effectiveness of a lot of these approval processes while maintaining the constitutional rights of Canadians.

Would the member not agree that she is perhaps making a straw man in this argument?