Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the important issue raised by my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.
Let me start by being absolutely clear about what the government has said publicly and consistently. The Prime Minister has stated repeatedly, in the House and outside it, that projects should move forward with the agreement of the impacted jurisdiction and the impacted indigenous nations. This has not changed. So far, no project has been proposed before the regulators. There is no decision to lift the oil tanker moratorium. What the member referred to is a memorandum of understanding between Canada and Alberta. The MOU does not sidestep indigenous rights or decision-making.
The member suggested that the coastal first nations have been ignored or sidelined. This is not accurate. When concerns were raised, the Prime Minister publicly committed to meeting with Coastal First Nations and, in fact, met with its leadership in January. Federal ministers have consistently said that engagement must be nation to nation, meaningful and grounded in respect for indigenous rights and title. That is not a box-checking exercise. It is a legal and constitutional requirement, and it is how the government approaches all major projects.
Meaningful engagement and consultation also means meaningful economic opportunity for indigenous rights holders. That means opportunities defined by indigenous nations themselves, grounded in skills training, long-term employment, ownership and real participation in economic decision-making, not only as a condition but also as part of building durable, respectful partnerships that support shared prosperity.
As for looking at adjustments to the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, we may not even need to look at the act, depending on the project ultimately proposed. If we do, I can assure members that nothing about that process would be skipped. Robust consultations would be held.
Trust is built through actions, not rhetoric. That is why the government has been clear that indigenous participation is not symbolic and not optional. Indigenous nations are rights holders. Their input and decisions matter. This is also why the government has been clear that British Columbia must be meaningfully involved. The MOU clarity stipulates that robust engagement must be held with the B.C. government and that the people of British Columbia must benefit from any project that moves forward in their province. The member is right that the coast has a history, and that history matters. It is precisely because of that history that the government has rejected the idea of ramming projects through.
Canada is navigating a complicated global moment, with real debates about energy security, climate responsibility and economic resilience. Those debates must be grounded in facts, law and respect for rights, not assumptions about decisions that have not been made. We will continue to engage and consult directly with indigenous nations. We will continue to respect provincial jurisdiction, and we will not move forward on any project unless those conditions are met. That is how we build a stronger Canada: by working together.