Debates of Jan. 27th, 2026

Opposition Motion—Canadian Economic Sovereignty

[Rebecca Chartrand, Liberal, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, when we look at the reality in northern Canada, specifically Nunavut, the Nunavut agreement clearly states that it is a tripartite agreement between the federal government, the Government of Nunavut and NTI. We cannot change those processes. The Nunavut agreement clearly outlines the steps that have to be taken, in sequence, to move projects along, whether for resources or land. We cannot change that. We have to abide by it.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am intrigued that the Conservatives are portraying their motion and the course that they want to take today as a vision for a Canadian sovereignty act.

Personally, I have always believed that sovereignty means passing laws, collecting taxes, and signing treaties with other nations. However, when we look at what the Conservatives are actually proposing in their motion, which indirectly lays out their definition of sovereignty, all that we really see is the elimination of environmental measures and the introduction of measures that promote oil and gas development.

This raises a question in my mind that I would like to ask my colleague. As the Conservatives see it, does sovereignty not necessarily mean Canadian sovereignty, or are they confused about the difference between sovereignty and oil? Is some education needed?

[Rebecca Chartrand, Liberal, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, there are already established regulatory requirements, which include environmental assessments. These are things we cannot override. It is really important that we understand the jurisdiction of the north, where 80% of the land mass is covered by modern treaties or settlement agreements. Those rules around regulations and environmental assessments are baked in. We want to make sure we are always honouring those processes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the efforts that my good friend has made in Manitoba, in particular with the whole concept of the Churchill port. Recently, we were at a press conference at the Manitoba legislature where we saw three important entities coming together to advance the interest of the Port of Churchill, which has a profound, positive impact on all of Canada.

Could the member provide her thoughts on the Port of Churchill and explain, from her perspective, why that is such an important project?

[Rebecca Chartrand, Liberal, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, yes, the Port of Churchill in northern Manitoba is a huge opportunity for Manitoba and Canada to support our efforts to diversify our economy, but also to support national security. Churchill was previously a military site, so there is already established infrastructure there. We know it as the gateway to the north. Last week, there was an MOU signed between AGG, which is the Arctic Gateway Group, the Winnipeg Airports Authority and CentrePort Canada to create the type of ecosystem that is needed to support this very critical infrastructure.

We will see land, air, road and rail come together like never before to ensure that we are utilizing the infrastructure we have in Manitoba. This is a good opportunity to identify that these processes are being led by indigenous stakeholders and rights holders in the north. What we are seeing is early engagement, something that is being led by AGG, which is indigenous-owned. That is the path forward, working hand in hand with indigenous peoples, not sidestepping them.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Secretary of State (Sport)]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to speak to this important motion today, particularly in the context of where our nation is in early 2026.

Our government is restoring economic sovereignty to this country. We are encouraging resource development, strengthening competitive investments, both foreign and domestic, and spurring on innovation here at home. Being from the beautiful riding of Burlington North—Milton West, which is right on the fulcrum of Canada's innovation corridor, that last part on innovation, with our universities, our researchers and the private sector, could not be more important at this time.

All of these goals, including building on our economic security, our ability to encourage and protect innovation and our incredible capacity, particularly lately with the Prime Minister's ability to go around the world and incent the interest in investing in Canada, attracting those global investments, could not come at a more important time. Those are all goals that should unite us, not divide us. They are the goals that inspired the Building Canada Act, the creation of the Major Projects Office and the streamlining of all of our nation-building projects in things like LNG, critical minerals, clean energy, infrastructure and affordable housing.

Our government is fast-tracking major projects like the Montreal port expansion. We are fast-tracking the LNG Canada phase two project and other projects that will bolster Canada's economy and create jobs and more economic sovereignty right across our great country. These represent some of the biggest private sector investments in Canadian history. We are fast-tracking the Iqaluit hydro project and the Darlington small modular reactor to provide clean and affordable energy to Canadians. This work is also creating tens of thousands of jobs and higher wages for Canadians right across this country.

Today, what the Conservatives are trying to do with this motion is to further mislead Canadians into thinking that important measures to combat climate change, spur on innovation and ensure that we are skating to where the puck is going are actually having a negative impact. They are projecting that these are having a negative impact on affordability here at home, but the truth could not be more contrary. Investments in innovation are skating to where the puck is going.

Farmers know this. Farmers in my riding recognize that climate change is the leading impact on food cost inflation right now. Conservatives have stood in this House time and time again to talk about the price of coffee. I love coffee; I drink too much of it. Coffee is too expensive, but we do not grow coffee in Canada. We roast some coffee, but to suggest that domestic climate-change-fighting policies are having an impact on the cost of coffee is foolish.

Farmers know that the leading cause of crop yields being more challenging and less reliable, and food costs going up, is climate change. They also know how to leverage exemptions and rebates, how to access clean tech funding, how to upgrade old equipment to more efficient operational costs. They know that reduces energy costs and consumption. That is how we lower food costs and make sure that Canadians are able to buy the fresh food, the produce, meat and dairy products, that their families need every single month. It is about making sure we have energy-efficient grain drying here at home, barn upgrades and precision agriculture. We already know the agriculture sector is one of the most innovative in Canada, and our government is working hand in hand with farmers and agricultural experts from across the country to ensure that they have the tools they need to skate to where the puck is going, to use that hockey analogy again.

As the Prime Minister said at the World Economic Forum just a few days ago, our goals of making Canada an energy superpower demand that we respond with openness, not retrenchment. We must build on pragmatic collaboration rather than go headlong into a reactive or fortress-building mentality.

It is critical to Canadians that we continue to fight climate change and lower the likelihood of things such as wildfires, floods and other climate-related tragedies that have already claimed too many lives and homes, all while we strengthen our economy, build resilience and provide reliable and affordable energy to communities right across this country.

The Conservatives have been playing the same game that they have played over the last couple of years with climate action. They want to position climate action as something that is too expensive for Canadians, while in fact, climate action brings costs down. They are trying to position the industrial carbon pricing mechanism we have in this country, which is providing farmers with the opportunity to innovate and with reliable innovations to change some of their practices to lower consumption mechanisms that will naturally cost less money, as something that is contributing directly to the costs of food.

We import a lot of food from other countries, so one of the things our government is undertaking is to grow more at home and make sure we have more abattoirs, meat-producing facilities, farms and greenhouses. In my riding, which is one of the largest mushroom-producing regions in the country, we produce a lot of mushrooms, and we want to make sure that can grow. Mushrooms grow quickly. Let us make sure that we are doing everything we can to support those food sectors.

The motion the Conservatives put on the table today would not strengthen Canadian sovereignty. It would do quite the opposite. In fact, their misleading rhetoric over how climate action has an impact on the pocketbooks of Canadians has been soundly refuted by farmers, researchers and food experts. We know that industrial carbon pricing has a tiny, if not zero, price impact on the food we all need, but the Conservatives do not care about facts. The Conservatives are more focused on supporting a nostalgic view and looking back into the rear-view mirror for inspiration. They are not like this government. We are going forward.

In order to accelerate the approval and construction of innovative major projects, collaboration is key, and that is where the Conservatives could choose to skate.

The Olympics are coming up. The Paralympics are coming up. Athletes from different teams come together to compete on team Canada for the benefit of our country. They will compete together for the maple leaf. They will inspire people to undertake more healthy lifestyles or try a new sport, and they will encourage kids to dream.

I encourage every member of this House to collaborate and help refine legislation so that it reaches and helps more Canadians, not just the wealthiest Canadians. Yesterday, in the House of Commons, when we started talking about the Prime Minister's new plan to bring forward a groceries and essentials benefit, the Conservatives wanted to suggest that it was not going to help very many Canadians. That is false.

I remember when I was a kid and my mom used to receive the GST rebate, because it helped my family a lot. We went out to buy running shoes. Maybe we went to Swiss Chalet those nights. It paid for our guitar lessons. It paid for my canoe club. Those things really made a difference in my young life, when I was a kid, and I know that an enhanced groceries and essentials benefit, as the Prime Minister has laid out, is going to do just that for 12 million Canadians in every single riding: Conservative ridings, Liberal ridings, New Democrat ridings, Bloc ridings and Green ridings. Ridings across the country will benefit.

Lower-income Canadians deserve that support, and I am very proud that this government has undertaken to provide the groceries and essentials benefit, because it is precisely what food experts have been calling for. Food Banks Canada, oft cited by the Conservatives, did not say anything about industrial carbon pricing or any of the things in the Conservative motion today. Experts who know how hard it is to get food on a low-income budget say we need a groceries and essentials benefit. They said we need to grow more food here in Canada. They said we need to support low-income earners and make sure that the northern food security priorities are advanced, but that is not what the Conservatives put in their motion today. It is just about the industrial carbon tax. That makes it very clear who the Conservatives are working for.

As I said, the Olympics and the Paralympics are coming up. Athletes know how to go for Canada. They are all going to compete for Canada. They are going to come together, promote the maple leaf and fight for our country. I consider us to be one big team. We can take a team Canada approach here. At this time, it is more important than ever that we come together, provide good ideas in this House, have robust debate and work together on advancing important supports and programs for Canadians that the most vulnerable in our society, particularly, will benefit from.

The Conservatives have spilled a lot of ink and talked a lot about food banks over the last couple of years. Now let us listen to Food Banks Canada. They said we need a groceries and essentials benefit. Let us not try to distract with this motion today. Let us support the legislation before the House from our Prime Minister and support low-income Canadians.

Go, Canada, go.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe I heard my hon. colleague refer in his speech to projects being fast-tracked. I wonder if he could clarify that for me, because my understanding is that all the government has done thus far is refer projects to a new bureaucratic office and that no decisions have yet been made. In fact, no projects have been fast-tracked today; they have just been shoved to a bureaucracy to consider further.

Am I correct, or have there actually been decisions made?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Burlington North—Milton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to correct the record.

Unfortunately, the Conservative member is mistaken. We have fast-tracked many projects, including recreational facilities across this country. Those were outlined in the budget. If the Conservative members allowed time on the legislative schedule, voted in favour of the budget implementation act and supported the supports that are going out to Canadians, those recreational facilities would fill the gap in a lot of communities that require support in our great big beautiful country.

There is a list in the budget. I would be happy to send it across to the hon. member. There are at least 10 recreational projects, and many others, for the member's information.

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

Mr. Speaker, according to the World Bank's data, there are 73 carbon pricing mechanisms in 53 countries. Out of all these mechanisms and countries, only one has been walked back, and it was done by the current government. We also see that the current Prime Minister and the new government have scrapped almost all of the environmental protection measures that Justin Trudeau's government had adopted over the past 10 years.

How does my colleague feel about these decisions to walk back the climate change policies and the fact that Canada is the only one out of 53 countries to do so?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Burlington North—Milton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for speaking up for the environment and for the fight against climate change. It is a cause that is close to my heart. It is one of the many reasons that prompted me to put my name on the ballot.

Fighting climate change is a priority for our government. We have many programs and tools to achieve this. Industry and the energy sector can do their part. A lot of Ontario's energy comes from nuclear power.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have to admit that when I looked at this opposition motion, I could not help but think, “Holy, the Conservatives are so lazy.” What they have done is literally take the entire platform they ran on nine months ago and put it into an opposition motion, but here is a news flash: Canadians voted against that platform. They did not give the Conservatives the ability to form a government.

I wonder if the secretary of state would provide his comments on how he thinks the Conservatives approached this motion today, and how it seems to lack any sense of their responsibility to be a proper opposition in the House.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Burlington North—Milton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, just a couple of days ago, there was a fad on Instagram where everybody was looking back to 2016. The Conservatives were saying exactly the same stuff in 2016 that they are saying today. That was 10 years ago. They are still talking down climate action. They are still ignoring lower-income Canadians. They still think climate change is a hoax. Some things never change.

What has not changed in the last year is that the Conservatives do not have any new ideas. This motion is literally, word for word, their platform, which was soundly rejected by Canadians last year. It sounds as though in the last year, the only thing they have been willing to do is parrot their talking points and read the speeches given to them by the Conservative leader's staff. It would be nice to see a bit of creativity, individuality or individual thought from the Conservative members, but I think that is too much to ask.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon.

Our motion today requests that the House call on the government to adopt what we have proposed in a Canada sovereignty act. A sovereignty act is our proposal to re-establish Canada as a competitive and world-class nation, confident in its ability to build national pipelines, projects and ports and all other manner and means to enable Canadians to again feel confident in their future.

We have often heard criticism that the opposition does not provide enough solutions. Here they are, before the House, and we will continue to provide Canadians with common-sense solutions to the inaction of 10 years of Liberal governments.

We want Canadians to feel confident that the opportunity for them is on the horizon, that a better future awaits them and their children and that a sense of pride in our country could return. The sovereignty act, therefore, is really, fundamentally, a proposal of hope for Canadians that the future will be better than the past and that we can move our country in a positive direction.

I am sorry to say that, in my estimation, Canadians do not feel confident in their future right now. In fact, lots of public polling will support my position. Canadians are more anxious than they have ever been. They are more concerned than they have ever been about what the future holds for them, where their next paycheques will come from, how they will feed their families and whether or not they will have a job in the future. In fact, many feel that their children will no longer be better off than they were at the same time in their lives.

It feels like a nation divided, where the government has allowed division to percolate and simmer: west versus east and Canadians of faith versus Canadians who have a different view. Over and over, those divisions of region versus region and Canadian versus Canadian have percolated and simmered. Of course, there is our more belligerent neighbour to the south.

It seems to me that these are echoes of our history. My hon. colleague who spoke before me chided the Conservatives for looking at history, but our history is a proud one. We should be proud of it and draw inspiration from it and the great men and women who came before us in this House.

It seems to me that there are echoes of our past in our present situation. Indeed, in my estimation, our current circumstances are not dissimilar to some of those that faced our infant nation in the late 1870s and 1880s during the debates in this House around our great national project, the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway.

During the great parliamentary debates in late 1880 and early 1881, our great founding father, John A. Macdonald, lamented on the failure of the earlier attempt to organize the construction of the railway. In his speech to the House, he noted that in the intervening period between the first and second attempts to build the railway, “We have had tragedy, comedy and farce from the other side.” The parallel of those days is strikingly similar to me. We, too, have had tragedy, comedy and farce from the Liberal government.

The tragedy in our present time is that we have similarly lost a decade. For 10 years, no progress has been made by the government to develop Canada's great endowments. For 10 years, no priority has been given by the government to building anything. It is quite the opposite in fact. The focus of the government has been frivolities rather than the fundamentals of our country. There has been concern about banning plastic straws rather than building our future, and about figuring out how many selections there should be in the gender section of a government application rather than focusing on how Canadians will find their next meal.

The comedy is that in the present time, we are seeing members of the government who thought one way and said different things last year or the year before now speaking and professing to believe things in an entirely different way. For a decade, we were told that the carbon tax and other Liberal environmental measures were the only way to preserve our future for our children and the only way to reverse environmental decline, but now, the Liberals have eliminated their own proposals. For a decade, we were told that Canada is a genocidal and racist country with a history not worth remembering, and that we should tear down statues of our great founding father, John A. Macdonald. Now, the government wraps itself in the flag when it is convenient for it. The hypocrisy on the other side is the sad comedy that we face today.

Then there is the farce. The farce of our present time is that the new schemes of the government will not achieve anything. A new government bureaucracy will not build more homes. A new government bureaucracy will not see grand national projects started. Despite what the secretary of state said, the Major Projects Office has not given final approval for a single project. Liberals can spread their misinformation, but others can also google it for themselves.

Moreover, we live in a time when the average time to get a building project done, a mine, for example, is 19 years. This is the farce of our current time, but Conservatives have provided a solution, a Canada sovereignty act, which would make a meaningful difference in the sovereignty of Canada. It is not complicated. In fact, its elegance is its simplicity, which is to get the government out of the way and remove the obstacles that are holding back our national success.

I think John A. Macdonald knew that was the way, too. Indeed, the speech from the throne in 1880, in determining the manner to construct the Canadian Pacific Railway, argued and proposed that it should be constructed “by means of an Incorporate Company...rather than by the direct action of the Government.” Those are wise words from our history, which I hope the government will take to heart, because when we export more, build more and develop our nation more, incomes go up and life becomes more affordable for Canadians. A sovereignty act would do that.

Now I will say a word on the cost of failure. Failing to adopt the changes that we have proposed in our sovereignty act will have a cost. Failing to repeal the Impact Assessment Act, the oil shipping ban and the emissions cap will mean that a pipeline to the west coast may never happen. Failing to remove the industrial carbon tax will saddle our industries with a burden that their competitors do not share and make them uncompetitive in the world economy. Maintaining the EV mandate will force our auto manufacturers to pay millions of dollars to foreign companies in credits.

We will bleed our auto manufacturers, feed foreign companies and add to foreign wealth. How does that enhance our sovereignty?

In his great speech of January 1881, John A. Macdonald also warned of the cost of failure to complete our great national project wholly and entirely in Canada. He warned that Canada would become “a bundle of sticks, as we were before, without a binding cord, and that we should fall, helpless, powerless, and aimless, into the hands of the neighboring Republic.”

The costs of failure in our present day are no less severe, and that is why Conservatives have proposed their solutions in a Canada sovereignty act. They are not complicated. In fact, I do not think we disagree on some of them, but the comments from the other side lead me to believe that Liberals will not consider them. Therefore, they must accept the cost of that failure, the cost to our next generation.

I reiterate the Conservative belief and offer to do what we can to maintain, enhance and build our sovereignty, to once again be a nation proud in its history and in its great national projects, just as John A. Macdonald was in 1881.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Kingston, I find it really interesting to listen to the member tell me about Sir John A. Macdonald. I would like to tell him something about Sir John A. Macdonald, and that is that Bellevue House in Kingston, which was one of Sir John A. Macdonald's residences, was completely revamped recently to showcase the full display of who Sir John A. Macdonald was and his contributions throughout Canada's history.

Would the member like to know who travelled all the way from Saskatchewan to Kingston to participate in that ceremony? It was none other than the member for Yorkton—Melville, who decided she wanted to participate in that great ceremony.

I take slight offence, but I am sure city council in Kingston would take more, to this member's depiction of how it is, or in his words, is not, properly representing Sir John A. Macdonald's legacy. I would like to give the member the opportunity now to direct his comments directly to those on the Kingston city council about how they could do a better job representing a member who came from their community.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will direct my comments to the member who should be representing John A. Macdonald's history and who has unfortunately and shamefully failed to do so.

I ask the member to tell me when the statue will be put back up in the park in his riding. Tell me when and where, and I will join you in raising that statue to John A. Macdonald again, but I suspect he will not.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I will remind the member to address his comments through the Chair.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the mind boggles at the Liberals' and the Conservatives' debate over which party's actions are more inspired by John A. Macdonald. What Quebeckers remember John A. Macdonald for is his statement that Louis Riel would hang though every dog in Quebec bark in his favour. That is John A. Macdonald's legacy in Quebec.

I can hardly believe what I am hearing, especially on the heels of the Prime Minister's remarks about the Plains of Abraham and how the conquest was the best thing since sliced bread. I see no reason why we should be part of this country.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not hear a question in that, so I will take it as simply a comment.

What I would say to the hon. member is that Canada has had great men and women, both French and English, in our history and we should celebrate all of them. We should not do as the Liberals have done, which is tell our country that those great men and women were racist colonialists and tear down their statues, erasing our history and our pride.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Secretary of State (Sport)]

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the member's speech, I think we live in alternate realities. Times are tough and food is too expensive, but we have solutions and things have been going well, particularly on the jobs front.

Will the member acknowledge that Canadians built 190,000 jobs in this country between September and December of last year; that Canada's real GDP growth is forecasted to be higher in 2026 than it is in Germany, France, Japan, Italy and the majority of the G7; that our GDP changed and improved by more in 2025 than it did in Italy, the eurozone, the U.K. and Japan; and, because the member talked about confidence, particularly confidence in the Prime Minister, that confidence in our Prime Minister is the highest it has been in decades?

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we certainly do live in an alternate reality, because what I hear from people is that they are struggling to find their next meal. The 2.2 million Canadians at food banks would also agree with me on that. Investment is fleeing our country. Times are tough.

Instead, the member seems to live in an ivory tower of elitism, suggesting that things are fine and things are great. Things are not fine; things are not great. We need our sovereignty act and the proposals we have made to lift our country and move it forward to build great things again.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague gave an impassioned speech on the history of Sir John A. Macdonald. I was wondering if he had any other pieces he would like to share with us on why respecting our history is so incredibly important in today's context.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate a quote that I took to heart when reading John A. Macdonald's speech from 1881, where he said, if they could not complete these national projects, “that we should become a bundle of sticks, as we were before, without a binding cord, and that we should fall, helpless, powerless, and aimless, into the hands of the neighboring Republic.” I fear that is the case today.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the same rhetoric and the same speech over and over for years now. We saw the entire opposition motion in a platform the Conservatives put forward. The Leader of the Opposition ran on everything in the motion in the last election, but he lost. Canadians chose not to go with what he was proposing.

My question is very simple and I hope the leader uses this opportunity to be a little self-reflective. Has he learned anything from April 28 that would suggest he should do something different? If he did, what is that?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member seems to be astonished that we would say the same thing after the election that we said before the election. I can understand why he finds that counterintuitive, because the Liberals do exactly the opposite.

The Liberal Prime Minister promised he would get a deal with the Americans by July 21. There is still no deal. He said there would be countertariffs. There are no countertariffs. He said he would spend less. He is now spending $90 billion more, having doubled Justin Trudeau's deficit. He said there would be more investment. Investment has actually gone down. He said he would “build, baby, build”. In fact, he has not approved a single, solitary pipeline or removed a single anti-development bill.

The Liberals do the opposite of what they promised before the election. We keep our word.