House of Commons Hansard #74 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was conservatives.

Topics

line drawing of robot

This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.

Fair Representation Act First reading of Bill C-259. The bill amends the Canada Labour Code to protect workers' rights to organize freely and ensure representation by independent, democratic unions, addressing concerns about "company unions" and their accountability to members. 100 words.

Opposition Motion—Canadian Economic Sovereignty Members debate the Conservative's proposed Canada Sovereignty Act, which aims to restore economic sovereignty. It calls for repealing federal measures like the Impact Assessment Act, industrial carbon tax, and oil tanker moratorium to unblock resource development. While Conservatives argue this will spur jobs and make Canada more affordable, Liberals contend it's a rehash of a rejected platform, emphasizing their government's focus on trade diversification and major projects. Bloc MPs question if supporting foreign-owned oil companies truly enhances Canadian sovereignty. 49900 words, 6 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.

Statements by Members

Question Period

The Conservatives heavily criticize the government's failure to address the highest food inflation in the G7, attributing it to Liberal taxes and deficits. They demand action on major projects and advocate for a Canadian sovereignty act to boost the economy, while also highlighting rising housing costs and the escalating extortion crisis.
The Liberals highlight efforts to combat the cost of living through a new $1,890 groceries and essentials benefit and tax cuts. They emphasize economic growth, significant job creation, and major project investments achieved through collaboration with provinces. The party also addresses public safety concerns like auto theft and extortion.
The Bloc focuses on US trade negotiations, seeking a new agreement and removal of pork tariffs to protect jobs. They also condemn the IT fiasco causing major issues with seniors' pensions.
The NDP highlights challenges in the North including housing and extreme food prices, urging investment to address poverty and Arctic security.

National Framework for Food Price Transparency Act Second reading of Bill C-226. The bill aims to establish a national framework to improve food price transparency, including standardized unit pricing, to help Canadians compare grocery costs. Supporters say it promotes fairness and empowers consumers. Conservatives argue it adds bureaucracy and won't lower food prices. The Bloc Québécois views it as federal overreach into provincial jurisdiction given Quebec's existing regulations. 8100 words, 1 hour.

Adjournment Debates

Food affordability for Canadians Andrew Lawton describes how rising food costs are impacting families in his riding. Patricia Lattanzio cites the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, a boost to the GST credit. Lawton asks why the government won't remove hidden taxes, and Lattanzio insists that bringing down costs for Canadians remains a top priority.
Liberal crime legislation Colin Reynolds criticizes the Liberal government's crime policies, citing rising crime rates and calling for the repeal of Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. Patricia Lattanzio defends the government's actions, highlighting Bill C-14 and other crime bills. Reynolds also criticizes the government's focus on law-abiding gun owners.
Was this summary helpful and accurate?

Interparliamentary DelegationsRoutine Proceedings

10 a.m.

Liberal

Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the following reports: the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association respecting its participation at the Parliamentary Transatlantic Forum in Washington, D.C., United States of America, from December 4 to 6, 2023; the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association concerning its participation at the Spring Session in Sofia, Bulgaria, from May 24 to 27, 2024; the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association concerning its participation at the 70th Annual Session in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, from November 22 to 25, 2024; and the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association concerning its participation at the Joint Committee Meetings of Defense Security Committee, Economics and Security Committee and the Political Committee in Brussels, Belgium, from February 17 to 19, 2025.

Environment and Sustainable DevelopmentCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

January 27th, 2026 / 10 a.m.

Liberal

Angelo Iacono Liberal Alfred-Pellan, QC

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, entitled “Environment and Climate Impacts Related to the Canadian Financial System”.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

Environment and Sustainable DevelopmentCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10 a.m.

Conservative

David Bexte Conservative Bow River, AB

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present today a dissenting report from the environment committee. This report, born amid global and domestic upheavals, threatens to shackle Canadian companies with expensive regulations that shove ideology down the throat of reality. It is another top-down decree from ivory towers, fattening consultants while choking off capital to those who have built this nation's prosperity. These are the engines of untold wealth and jobs, whose success underpins millions of pensions and everyday investments.

While Liberal members on the committee will not publicly admit that their aim is to make it more expensive for companies, particularly those in the energy sector, to access capital, we are not afraid to call it as we see it. The reality is that other climate policies, such as the consumer carbon tax and the emissions cap, have failed, and now they have put their EV mandates on ice. They are struggling to come up with a way to bolster their climate credentials in a policy area that most Canadians will not see but that have an impact on the economy.

I would request a comprehensive response to this report from the House.

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Liberal

Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Orders 104 and 114, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, regarding membership of committees of the House. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the 13th report later this day.

Bill C-259 Fair Representation ActRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

NDP

Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-259, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (fair representation).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table the fair representation act.

This law protects workers' rights.

This legislation would protect workers' fundamental right to organize freely and know that they are being represented by an independent and democratic union.

The CLAC is the largest example of a company union. It claims to represent workers, but labour boards in Nova Scotia and Manitoba have ruled against it. The International Trade Union Confederation suspended CLAC for undermining labour conditions, yet the Liberal government gave CLAC nearly $5 million in public funds just last year.

This has to stop. Real unions are democratic and accountable to their members, and only to their members.

Unions must be free and independent.

I urge all members to support this legislation when it next comes before the House.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Liberal

Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON

Mr. Speaker, it being later this day, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay.

It is agreed.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

(Motion agreed to)

Nuclear DisarmamentPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present this petition, which deals with the issue of the threat of nuclear war.

The petitioners point out that the nuclear arms control architecture has all but disintegrated with the termination of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and Treaty on Open Skies between the United States and Russia, and that the New START Treaty negotiations are, at this point, not inspiring hope for a good conclusion.

The petitioners further go on to remind us that the House of Commons and the Senate approved a motion unanimously back in 2010 to encourage Canada to engage in negotiations for the Nuclear Weapons Convention and deploy a major worldwide Canadian diplomatic initiative in support of nuclear disarmament.

As well, petitioners remind us that in 2018, the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence made an all-party recommendation that Canada play a leadership role in NATO in encouraging work toward a world free of nuclear weapons.

Therefore, the petitioners ask the Government of Canada to make nuclear disarmament a foreign policy national defence priority and to engage with and accede to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

Religious FreedomPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to table a petition on behalf of constituents in my riding.

The petitioners believe that freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights that must be preserved. They believe that the Liberal bill, Bill C-9, is an infringement on those rights.

As such, petitioners call on the House to withdraw Bill C-9 and prevent government intrusion into matters of faith.

TaxationPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present petition e-6753, which was signed by 7,175 Canadians who want the GST and HST removed from massage therapy services.

Registered massage therapy is recognized as a medical service by health care professionals, and registered massage therapists are licensed and regulated like other health professionals but still not exempt from GST and HST under the Excise Tax Act.

Failure to remove the GST creates double standards and inequity in the professions regulated by the colleges. It may also contribute to financial barriers for some patients.

These Canadians are calling on the Government of Canada to add registered massage therapy to the GST and HST exemption within the Excise Tax Act and remove the GST and HST from registered massage therapy services in Canada.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia

Is it agreed?

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia

[For text of questions and responses, see Written Questions website]

Opposition Motion—Canadian Economic SovereigntyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB

moved:

That, in the interest of restoring Canadian economic sovereignty, the House call on the government to immediately introduce a Canada Sovereignty Act that:

(a) re-establishes Canada as a competitive resource-producing nation by repealing federal measures that block or penalize development, including,

(i) the Impact Assessment Act (formerly Bill C-69),

(ii) the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act (formerly Bill C-48),

(iii) the federal industrial carbon tax,

(iv) the oil and gas emissions cap,

(v) the federal electric vehicle sales mandate,

(vi) the federal plastics manufacturing prohibitions,

(vii) federal regulatory restrictions that impede communication and advocacy by Canadian energy companies;

(b) rewards provinces, businesses, and workers who build and invest in Canada by,

(i) introducing a Canada First Reinvestment Tax Cut to spur domestic industrial activity,

(ii) providing free trade bonuses to provincial governments that remove internal trade barriers and fully open their markets to fellow Canadians; and

(c) protects Canadian innovation by 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.

Mr. Speaker, as a first-generation Albertan and the daughter of a Newfoundlander, a very common story in my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador, which is a place so near and dear to my fiery heart that glows strong and free like Alberta's wild roses, what an honour it is to split my time with a vibrant, kind, honest and happy woman warrior, the new Conservative MP for Long Range Mountains.

It is fitting that two MPs from two provinces on opposite sides of the country start debate today. Both provinces are relatively new in Confederation compared to most of the others, and we have built each other's homes to the benefit of the whole country for two main reasons: the resilience, tenacity and adventurous risk-taking of our people, and our natural resources.

Today, Canada is at a crossroad that has been visible and closing in for more than a decade. Canadians are vulnerable, struggling, worried about their futures and divided more now than ever before, because today, only press conferences and expansive rhetoric exist. There are no actual results for all the promises the Prime Minister made more than half a year ago about nation-building projects getting built at “speeds not seen in generations”.

What of today? More than 60 major projects with real proponents in every natural resources sector are stuck in front of federal regulators with no end in sight. More investment flows out of Canada into the U.S. than the other way around, which is a historical anomaly that started in 2015. I wonder what happened then.

It has gotten worse every single year since. There is no pipeline being built to anywhere now, because the private sector will not attempt it alone. The Liberals outright vetoed and approved one a decade ago, from Lakeland to the Pacific, for export to Asia to reduce dependence on the U.S. It was supported by the majority of indigenous communities, but the court said that consultation had to be redone, just as the Liberals would have to do on TMX. They did not; they killed it.

My first speech here in 2015 was in support of a west-to-east pipeline for Canadian energy independence and security, to bring Western oil to eastern refineries and for export to Europe. I have to note that the Liberals killed that promise, too, by moving goalposts and death by delay.

Those were the chances to make Canada united, self-reliant, affordable and sovereign, but when a company spent years and $1 billion trying to make it, the Liberals ignored its warning that regulatory uncertainty risked the pipeline, because that is what the Liberals wanted for politics in a province in the middle. After that happened, the company even dropped “Canada” from its name and built pipelines in the U.S.

After that and endless caps, bans, taxes, mandates and regulations, hundreds of thousands of Canadians lost their livelihoods and legacies, and many took their own lives as major private sector plans were shelved: $670 billion in major natural resources projects and $176 billion in 16 major energy projects alone have all gone, while the costs for energy, essential in Canada, have skyrocketed due to bad policies and uncompetitive taxes.

The Prime Minister claims to be different from the one he advised for more than the last half decade, but lots of rhetoric with no actual results is exactly the same.

While the Liberals did all this to Canada, the U.S., under Obama, by the way, and it just ramped up afterward, started crude oil exports outside of North America for the first time in four decades and vetoed KXL from Canada at the same time. American and other money funded campaigns to stop Canadian energy projects. Our biggest trading partner, the world's most important economy and still Canada's biggest customer just said that because of Liberal Atlantic and Pacific pipeline killers, it will soon get up to 50 million barrels of Venezuelan oil to compete directly with its Canadian heavy crude imports and put billions of Canadian dollars and thousands of jobs at risk.

Meanwhile, our Prime Minister is clearly cozy with the regime he said was Canada's “biggest security threat”. That is also the position of the current President of the United States, but the Prime Minister has let them all in our backyard. Talk about letting all the foxes in the henhouse.

The Liberals have the gall to spend millions of tax dollars on ads about Canada being an energy superpower. They hated that when Stephen Harper said it, but the Liberals now want support, help, accolades, co-operation and compliments from the Conservatives. I would say the Liberals should take a bow, if they can do that with their elbows up I guess, but they need only look in the mirror for who is to blame for why Canadians now find themselves vulnerable to bullies everywhere instead of being self-reliant, sovereign, united and thriving, not just surviving like they are, as this country could and should have been today, with all our blessings, our people and our natural resources.

No matter the magical thinking one favours, here is the truth: Despite the Liberal decade of anti-resource and anti-private sector policies and taxes, in 2024, oil and gas still employed half a million Canadians. It is still Canada's largest private sector investor and top export, but almost all of it goes to the U.S. Natural resources are still, by far, the main driver to close the gap between the rich and poor, and the biggest employer of indigenous Canadians in the entire economy from coast to coast to coast, but the Liberals' words differ from their actions, which shows they still want to risk and break it all for their ideology.

It is our duty to oppose the government when necessary and to propose solutions to create private sector jobs and bigger paycheques and cut costs for every Canadian. This is why, today, Conservatives bring forward a Canadian sovereignty act to legalize and turbocharge Canadian energy development and construction everywhere.

The act points out seven anti-development laws that kill projects and jobs in Canada for repeal and reform.

Bill C-69 is the unconstitutional, divisive law that makes it impossible to build and blocks major projects across Canada, which the Liberals admit to with a workaround in Bill C-5. Right now, the Liberals pick politically recommended projects behind closed doors and refuse to define the national interest or fix the actual laws for anyone else.

Bill C-48, the shipping ban, blocks Canadian oil experts from the west coast, while foreign dictators' oil and U.S. oil tankers still pass through every other coast and canal.

The federal industrial carbon tax hikes the cost of everything Canadians buy across the supply chain. The U.S., Canada's biggest competitor, does not have this federally.

The ban on gas and diesel vehicles will hike prices by up to $20,000 for consumers, expose retailers to criminal charges and limit Canadians' freedom of choice. The U.S. does not impose this on itself.

The plastics ban hurts responsibly producing Canadian manufacturers and hikes the costs of groceries everywhere. The U.S. does not have this.

The Liberal energy censorship law stops Canadian businesses from talking about their environmental track record and innovation unless they match the government's talking points. It sounds a bit like that regime the Prime Minister waffles on about, does it not?

The Liberals also say they intend to make changes, but still have not actually axed the oil and gas cap, which is the only one of its kind in the world. It will kill 54,000 Canadian jobs by 2032 and cut $21 billion from Canada's economy, and they know it. Who can afford this?

Do not take my word for it. Last April, in an extremely unusual Canadian action, 38 energy CEOs told the Prime Minister to simplify regulation and scrap Bill C-69, Bill C-48 and the oil and gas cap to “Build Canada Now”, since the law impedes development, and existing processes are uncertain, as well as “complex, unpredictable, subjective, and excessively long”, as we and every single expert have been telling the Liberals for a decade. In September, 96 energy CEOs sent a follow-up. It is now almost February.

I do not know what the Prime Minister considers generational speed, although the Liberals know a lot about generational theft. Thousands of major projects have been built faster than this in our country, and still nothing is actually being built. Right now, the U.S. Department of Energy's emergency permitting procedures can approve oil, gas, critical mineral and uranium projects on federal lands in as little as 28 days. The weird truth is that the U.S. Department of Energy and the Department of Defense can build projects faster than any private sector proponent in Canada can dream of. The Liberals want Canadians to believe that a $246-million major projects bureaucracy will solve the problem they created, but it is still being set up and the process is still uncertain, complex and opaque.

Conservatives will give certainty to Canada, as we have always said we will. In addition to fixing the fundamentals, not ragging the puck with workarounds, we will create a Canada-first reinvestment tax cut to eliminate capital gains taxes on reinvestments in Canadian businesses and projects; create a free trade bonus that rewards provinces for removing interprovincial trade barriers; require the industry minister to table a comprehensive plan to prevent Canada's inventions, technologies, intellectual property and strategic assets from being sold to foreign state-owned or -influenced interests; and safeguard Canadian ownership and control of critical technologies to ensure Canadian economic sovereignty.

After all of those promises, nearly a year into the Prime Minister's term and 11 years into the Liberal government, Canadians do not need more grand speeches or photo ops; they need results. Conservatives want big projects built in Canada by the private sector, efficiently, safely and affordably, with the top standards and Canadian materials for Canadians' public interests. If the Liberals are truly serious about making Canada an energy superpower, they have to show it now. The stakes for our country are much too high to dither, debate and delay any more.

Opposition Motion—Canadian Economic SovereigntyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:20 a.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, it is interesting. We need to realize that when the leader of the Conservative Party sat in the Conservative cabinet with Stephen Harper, they did not build even one inch of pipeline going to the west coast through B.C. They did not build one inch. That is the reality.

They will say they built some pipelines that went down to the States. Yes, that is true. They did build some pipelines going to the States.

Having listened to the member opposite, I will provide the opportunity to show the contrast between the Conservative Party's agenda and the Liberal Party's agenda. That contrast is why, in the last federal election, Canadians voted for a new Prime Minister and 70 new Liberal members of Parliament. They saw the comparison between the words from the Conservatives, a lot of which were misleading, and what a Liberal government would do, which we are doing.

Can the member clearly indicate how many inches of pipeline they constructed between Alberta and B.C.?

Opposition Motion—Canadian Economic SovereigntyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:20 a.m.

Conservative

Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB

Madam Speaker, the 11-year-old government is really desperate when it keeps talking about a dude who has not been prime minister for 15 years or something.

To be clear, in case the Liberals have not googled it or listened to us over the last 10 years, four pipelines were constructed under Stephen Harper's government, including a Line 9B reversal, which fuels Ontario and Quebec with oil and gas. That is the actual record.

As for the intergovernmental pipelines for export to diversify markets beyond the U.S., those proposals were made under the former Stephen Harper Conservative government, with our leader as a top minister, because the private sector had confidence it could build and invest in major nation-building projects to the benefit of every single Canadian.

These guys killed every single one. That is the truth.

Opposition Motion—Canadian Economic SovereigntyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:25 a.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Madam Speaker, it is good to see my hon. friend from Lakeland back in this place and well. We were deeply concerned when she was in hospital during the time of the budget debate. I apologize, Madam Speaker, but it had to be said.

I also want to say that she will know we agree on more things than others might imagine. However, on the offshore tanker issue, where U.S. and offshore foreign tankers pass by Canada's waters and British Columbian waters, they pass on the outside, because that is the direct route from Alaska to Washington state. They do not come in through the inside passages that are covered by Bill C-48.

I wonder if we can agree that we should probably stick to the facts of the geography and the waters where tankers move and where they do not.

Opposition Motion—Canadian Economic SovereigntyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:25 a.m.

Conservative

Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her kind words and her warm wishes. We have a bit of an unusual personal relationship. Her words mean more to me than people can probably imagine. I hope the people of Lakeland will continue to have confidence in me, despite the fact that I just said those words.

I agree with her that we have to set the facts straight about Bill C-48. Actually, this is a lesson in how effective the Liberals were at eating the NDP opposition whole while the NDP did not do its job. This is because, in fact, Bill C-48 did not give any teeth to the voluntary exclusion zone that the member references. It did not do anything of the sort, if one believes that marine tanker traffic is an irreparable ecological harm to the marine environment, because what Bill C-48 actually did, and this is why we know it was only to block oil exports from Alberta, was ban the loading and off-loading of crude and persistent oils at ports in that region and ban tankers of a certain capacity, a certain volume and a certain weight. Those would be the supertankers that take the direct and safest deepwater route to Asia.

This would have happened if the Liberals had redone indigenous consultation on the northern gateway, just as every single one of those indigenous communities that had mutual benefit agreements wanted them to. He never consulted them—

Opposition Motion—Canadian Economic SovereigntyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:25 a.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley.

Opposition Motion—Canadian Economic SovereigntyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:25 a.m.

Conservative

Jeremy Patzer Conservative Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK

Madam Speaker, the government is looking for some quick, simple, easy wins. A sovereignty act is obviously just that. There are so many great parts to it that would remove the barriers that industry has been telling us about for over a decade. The member and I have been on the same committee together many times, and we have heard this over and over again.

I am wondering if my colleague would like to inform the government about some of the conversations that have happened at committee with stakeholders about the need to pass something like a sovereignty act to try to kick-start development here in Canada.

Opposition Motion—Canadian Economic SovereigntyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:25 a.m.

Conservative

Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB

Madam Speaker, the member is a near and dear friend to Alberta and Albertans.

The Liberals know exactly what to do to fix the problems they have created, because they listed the laws and regulations that block building in the back of Bill C-5. That is why Conservatives are saying to fix the fundamentals, fix the law for everybody, set the rules of the game, and make sure that we can compete with and beat the United States so that the private sector can create jobs with the highest standards in the world and develop our natural resources to benefit the whole country and our allies—

Opposition Motion—Canadian Economic SovereigntyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:25 a.m.

Conservative

Carol Anstey Conservative Long Range Mountains, NL

Madam Speaker, I want to start by welcoming my colleague and friend, with a strong connection to Newfoundland and Labrador, back to this House.

It is my honour today to get up and speak to this opposition day motion. Let me begin, first and foremost, by wishing my constituents in the Long Range Mountains, and all Canadians, a happy, healthy and prosperous new year.

As we look ahead to the challenges before us, this debate on a Canadian sovereignty act is about a simple, but urgent question: Will Canada once again be a country that builds, produces and invests in itself, or will it continue down a path that leaves its resources undeveloped, its capital fleeing abroad and too many communities, especially rural ones, falling behind?

This opposition day motion is about restoring Canadian economic sovereignty by making it easier to build, invest and innovate here at home, while recognizing the growing urban-rural divide in our country. It is about being straightforward with Canadians by calling on the government to remove the federal laws and taxes that block resource development and industrial growth, including policies like the electric vehicle mandate that disproportionately hurts rural Canadians; unlock our natural resources to rebuild the communities that depend on them; reward businesses that invest in Canada through a Canada-first reinvestment tax cut; and protect Canadian innovation so that Canadian jobs, resources and ideas stay in Canadians' hands.

We are proposing solutions that restore investment confidence and get this country building again, and it is in that spirit that this motion is also about affordability. Conservatives know that affordability starts with opportunity. When we build more at home, we create jobs, increase incomes and strengthen the economic foundation that makes life more affordable for Canadians.

This motion is also about an invitation to work together to produce real results for the challenges Canadians are facing. Canadians are doing what they are supposed to do. They are working hard, they are running businesses, they are raising families and they are trying to plan for the future. What they are struggling with is a system that keeps adding cost, complexity and uncertainty instead of applying common sense.

Canada is one of the richest nations in the world. It is rich in natural resources, rich in talent and rich in opportunity, yet Canadians are struggling. Families are making harder choices. Businesses are delaying decisions and investment. Communities are wondering what comes next. I hear it all the time from people in my riding in Newfoundland and Labrador. Canada is one of the richest places in the country when it comes to natural resources, yet we continue to experience some of the weakest economic outcomes.

Canadians are rightly asking why a country so blessed keeps holding itself back. That concern is exactly why the oil and gas emissions cap matters so much. For Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore industry, which is one of the cleanest and most highly regulated in the world, federal uncertainty and caps drive away investment, delay projects and threaten good-paying jobs.

I want to drill down into this a little further, because I know the government will hide behind the budget, which signalled a shift in how it approaches oil and gas emissions policy. However, the government did not definitively repeal or provide a clear direction on the cap. It talked about other measures and how, if those measures were met, the cap would no longer be required. This leaves uncertainty about whether and how a cap might be implemented in the future.

This lack of certainty matters for investors and industry, because without a clear legislative commitment on whether or not the emissions cap will exist or be enforceable, businesses cannot confidently plan long-term development. Investors need predictable, stable policy, not vague conditions on future technologies. This is exactly why a Canadian sovereignty act matters. Its explicit removal of the emissions cap would deliver the clarity and certainty that foreign and domestic capital require to invest in Canada's resource sector and support jobs across the country.

This is so important to Newfoundland and Labrador. Therefore, I want to re-emphasize that the government presents this policy as a cap on emissions. Conservatives have been clear that in practice, this is a cap on jobs, a cap on revenue and a cap on opportunity.

Industry leaders have described this cap as not just a cap on production, but also a cap on investment. These leaders include Jim Keating, the chief executive officer of the Oil and Gas Corporation of Newfoundland and Labrador, who was responsible for overseeing and promoting the development of our offshore oil and gas resources. He warned that this approach undermines Canada's ability to attract and retain long-term capital. Investment decisions are made years in advance. Companies need certainty, clarity and confidence that if they invest in Canada, the rules will not change halfway through the project.

Global demand for oil and gas has not disappeared, and when Canada produces less, someone else produces more. Reducing Canadian production does not reduce global demand; it simply shifts production elsewhere. Canada produces energy with some of the highest environmental and labour standards in the world. When production is pushed out of Canada and into countries with weaker standards, global emissions increase. That does nothing to protect the environment; it simply costs Canadians jobs and investment.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, offshore oil and gas is not just a policy discussion; it is how families make a living. It is how young people see a future at home. It is also how we fund health care, education and infrastructure. This is why Conservatives have been honest about what this policy does. It is a job-killing cap that hurts workers without helping the environment.

The emissions cap also creates uncertainty across the broader economy. Energy projects support supply chains, service industries and local businesses. When investment slows, the impact is felt far beyond the energy sector itself.

Investment is so important to our economy and our country right now, which is why this motion also advances a Canada first reinvestment tax cut. This is a practical measure that would let Canadians reinvest capital back into Canadian businesses and projects, and keep investment, jobs and growth at home instead of driving them out of the country. If small businesses, housing providers, innovators and investors were to reinvest capital back into Canada, it would unlock domestic investment, boost productivity and keep capital from leaving the country. Even independent tax experts have described this idea as a potential game changer because it rewards reinvestment in Canadian companies rather than punishing success.

This is about keeping capital here, putting it to work here and strengthening our economy from the ground up. When businesses reinvest in Canada, Canadian workers benefit, communities grow and government revenues increase without raising taxes on families, which makes life more affordable for Canadians.

This matters deeply for Newfoundland and Labrador, where our economy is powered by small and medium-sized businesses. Family enterprises, fish harvesters, construction firms, tourism operators and energy-related service companies are the backbone of our community. These businesses are not asking for government handouts. They are asking for a fair chance to reinvest, expand and pass something on to the next generation. A reinvestment tax cut would help entrepreneurs in rural communities just as much as those in major cities, and it ensures capital stays local.

This motion also speaks to the electrical vehicle mandate, because forcing a one-size-fits-all target on Canadians, especially in a country with such vast and diverse geography and demographics, adds costs instead of delivering practical, affordable solutions. I want to be clear that this is not an argument against electric vehicles; it is an argument against the mandates. Conservatives believe government should not be telling Canadians what type of vehicle they are allowed to buy or drive.

Consumer choice drives markets. When Canadians choose a product because it works for them, demand grows, technology improves, prices come down and infrastructure follows. Mandates force compliance before systems are ready and push costs on to families and small businesses.

Even more concerning is that an analysis published in the Canadian Journal of Economics suggested that EV mandates could outpace cost parity and consumer demand, and that Canada could potentially face a collapse of its auto manufacturing sector and the loss of more than 100,000 jobs. In the face of this reality, the government's indefinite pause on electric vehicle mandates, with no clear timeline or answers, is simply unacceptable. People want openness and transparency, which is why Conservatives are clear and upfront about where we stand. All of these, the industrial carbon tax, the oil gas emissions cap and the vehicle mandates, collide and drive up costs at a time when Canadians are already stretched. Common sense tells us that this approach is not sustainable. Encouraging companies to reinvest here would strengthen our economy, reinforce our sovereignty and keep Canada competitive.

Canadians are tired of promises, fancy speeches and announcements that do not translate into real improvements in their lives. They want common sense. This is what a Canadian sovereignty act is meant to restore.

Opposition Motion—Canadian Economic SovereigntyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, one of the things that has been clearly amplified over the last number of months, and why Canada is being so well received by investors in foreign lands, is consistency. Investors do not want to see rules being changed. That is an important aspect, whether it concerns a private corporation or any other sort of investment firm looking to invest in Canada.

Does the member realize that parts of the opposition motion promote the sorts of changes that cause uncertainty and could prevent investment from taking place in Canada?

Opposition Motion—Canadian Economic SovereigntyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Conservative

Carol Anstey Conservative Long Range Mountains, NL

Madam Speaker, that is certainly not what I see at this time.

What I see is government overreach. The Liberals want their hand-picked projects. They want to make Canadians reliant on government programs. Consistently and constantly, I hear investors, business owners and people who want to grow saying that the government just needs to get out of the way.

This is what a Canadian sovereignty act is meant to ensure. It is calling on the government to get out of the way so that we can grow as an economy right here in Canada.