David McKenzie

Mr. Speaker, it is always a great honour and privilege to rise in the House and speak on behalf of the citizens of Calgary Signal Hill. First, I want to recognize the hon. member and the comments he made in the House. While I did not know the hon. member on a personal level, the degree of emotion and genuine goodwill expressed today is a testimony to the depth of commitment, sacrifice and hard work undertaken by members of the House, and it should hearten all Canadians. We have all been struck by the hard news that Canada is in a recession. Given the Prime Minister's background in economics, I suspect more than a few Canadians were surprised and dismayed at this news. Earlier today, the government House leader told us here in the House that the government has a plan that is working, but the member for Nepean has been Prime Minister for over a year, and Canada is in a recession. It is clear to me and to Canadians that whatever the plan is, it is not working. Now the Liberals seem to be leaning heavily on what they seem to think are a couple of bright economic statistics. As a Canadian, I would like to say that, thank goodness, there is at least a tiny bit of hope, but then again, let us have a closer look. A collection of Liberal MPs, from cabinet ministers to further back in the ranks, have stated that Canada has “the second-fastest growing economy in the G7”. Quite frankly, I have no idea how the Liberals put that statement together with the fact that Canada is in a recession. Recession means economic contraction and shrinkage, not growth. The second suggestion has been that Canada has foreign direct investment at twice the rate of our nearest G7 peer. That is an awfully strange statement from the Liberals, given that the report just last week by the Royal Bank of Canada stated that more than $1 trillion in investment left Canada between 2015 and 2024. That is two dollars leaving for every dollar that came in. In fact, just late last week, Stats Canada announced that, in the first quarter of 2026, more investment left Canada than came in.

moved that Bill C-264, An Act to repeal certain restrictions on shipping, be read the second time and referred to a committee. Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise in the House today to speak on behalf of the residents of Calgary Signal Hill. “The...MOU will build a pipeline”. Canada's Prime Minister made that statement in the House just four months ago. Of course, the Prime Minister was referring to the Memorandum of Understanding signed by the Province of Alberta and the federal government just six months ago. Since that time, the Prime Minister has made a number of statements promising Canadians additional oil export capacity by pipeline for the single most valuable natural resource exported by Canada. For example, the Prime Minister said less than two weeks ago, “we will advance a potential pipeline to transport at least one million barrels of low-emission Alberta oil a day to new markets.” That statement is consistent with what the Prime Minister said a year ago: “If you want a simple answer on ‘Will I support...a pipeline?’ Yes. That simple answer. I’ve given that multiple times.” Over and above the statements of the Prime Minister, the Province of Alberta and the federal government, just 10 days ago, signed an implementation agreement respecting the November MOU. The implementation agreement says that Alberta will submit a comprehensive proposal for an oil pipeline to Asian markets to the Major Projects Office by July 1, just over five weeks from now, and, second, that “Canada will pursue [its designation] as a project of national interest for approval under the Building Canada Act by October 1, 2026”. We might just be getting somewhere. Members may be wondering if the bill up for debate right now is indeed Bill C-264, an act to repeal the west coast tanker ban. After all, I have mentioned nothing about ships or tankers, just pipelines. The fact is that a precondition of the construction of a new crude oil export pipeline is the ability to load the oil transported by that pipeline onto a tanker for delivery to international markets. While Canada presently loads hundreds of thousands of barrels of crude oil onto ships through the Westridge terminus of the Trans Mountain pipeline at Burnaby, B.C., Bill C-48, the west coast tanker ban, prevents shipment from the northern B.C. coast. Greg Ebel, the CEO of Enbridge, Canada's biggest crude oil shipper, said, “No company would build a pipeline to nowhere.” Further, Mr. Ebel stated, “The tanker ban is a great example of how things will have to change to allow our country to maximize its economic potential. Let markets and real demand guide routes and capacities while government focuses on enabling the conditions for success.” Truer words are seldom spoken. Let us put these pieces together. The Prime Minister wants a pipeline built. Industry will build a pipeline and fill it with oil if that oil can be loaded onto tankers on Canada's west coast for export. Therefore, our next logical step is to repeal Bill C-48, the west coast Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, to allow for the safe and responsible ocean transport of crude oil that has been safely and responsibly produced here in Canada. There is good news, and it is only Tuesday. The Conservatives are here to help, and Bill C-264 is just what the doctor ordered: a repeal of the tanker ban so that the way would be clear for the construction of a new crude oil export pipeline and an increase in the safe and responsible shipment of Canadian oil to our international trading partners and allies across Asia. The demand for responsibly produced Canadian energy, including crude oil, has already been made clear. Nations that are not energy self-sufficient are interested in Canada as an energy supplier. We are a stable, democratic nation with environmental standards that are second to none, and we are a supplier of choice. Countries including India, Indonesia, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and Japan, the very countries with which the Prime Minister is trying to grow our trading relationships, want Canadian energy. While we have a great deal to gain by eliminating the west coast tanker ban, Canada also has something to lose if we do not take this opportunity to remove obstacles and develop the capacity to supply our international trading partners. Tim McMillan, former minister of energy and resources for the Province of Saskatchewan, was CEO of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers in 2019 when he stated, “Bill C-48 has the potential to permanently block Canada from exporting its responsibly produced natural resources to growing international markets, preventing us from helping to displace global greenhouse gas emissions and lift other nations out of energy poverty.” Martha Hall Findlay, former Liberal member of Parliament, was markedly more blunt when she said the tanker ban “was bad legislation and the government should get rid of it.” Ms. Hall Findlay identified a different approach from that taken by the current Liberal government with Bill C-48, when she said, “There are better alternatives to C-48, such as setting aside what are called Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas, which have been established in areas such as the Great Barrier Reef and the Galapagos Islands.” Why do we have Bill C-48? When the Liberals put the tanker ban in place, they argued that it was necessary for protecting the environment. That argument is completely inconsistent with the reality of commercial shipping on Canada's west coast. Nearly a century of tanker traffic has sailed the west coast without a serious oil spill of Canadian crude. Tankers are statistically safer than cars, airplanes, trains and even oil pipelines, when we look at the number of shipments safely transported. Right now the port of Vancouver loads roughly 400 oil tankers each year, and there have been no spills. Our safety standards are world-class, and our safety record proves it. The Liberals also argued that the tanker ban was required in order to protect the Hecate Strait in particular, because it is difficult to navigate and supposedly remarkably dangerous. This argument does not seem to have a basis in scientific fact. There are no Transport Canada risk analyses that describe the strait as particularly challenging. B.C. passenger ferries travel through the strait on a regular basis. The Prince Rupert Port Authority says the Hecate Strait is “a deep, ice free inlet with easy access and can be entered at all times and in all seasons.” When it comes to rough weather, I have been told by a former port authority employee that the high-tech solution is to wait. Satellite weather analysis and modern technology mean that ship captains can see rough conditions coming or see when they exist, and they simply wait out those conditions. The fact is that loaded oil tankers have passed through the Hecate Strait in the last half-dozen years during the existence of the tanker ban. There have not been many passages, but it does happen. I would suggest that it is not well known that these voyages have occurred from time to time, because the tankers have transited the Hecate Strait safely and without incident. It is important to note that oil tankers do not need to pass through the Hecate Strait to transport crude oil from the northern B.C. port of Prince Rupert. Rather, ships headed to international ports would sail through the Dixon Entrance and into the open ocean. The Dixon Entrance is a body of water that is 13 kilometres wide at its narrowest point. By way of illustration, 289 tankers would fit side by side across that distance of 13 kilometres. I want to speak to the safety of our maritime shipping industry. Today's tanker fleet is double-hulled, it sails using GPS navigation technology, it is extensively monitored, and when close to shore it requires escort tugs and marine pilots specifically trained on the waters that the ship is in. Tankers and commercial shipping are very safe, and we should be supporting and celebrating the capacity that exists on our west coast, rather than doubting the ability of our seafaring professionals to get this job done and done right. While overall safety is very high, marine accidents can and do happen. The most common causes, however, are not dangerous waters or freak weather occurrences but ship collisions and groundings. These accidents, logically, tend to happen when ships are near ports, and particularly when the ports are congested. The port of Vancouver currently suffers from congestion issues and aging infrastructure, and the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion has already increased tanker traffic there. Additional port capacity at Prince Rupert and Kitimat can reduce the pressure on the port of Vancouver and increase shipping safety. Again, former Liberal MP Ms. Hall Findlay was succinct on the subject of shipping risk. She said, “There are risks associated with any kind of transportation with any goods, and not all of them are with oil tankers. All that singling out one part of one coast did was prevent more oil and gas from being produced that could be shipped off that coast”. Those who feel our west coast tanker waters are too dangerous for crude oil tankers must be wondering how different our east coast is from our west coast. On Canada's east coast, roughly 240 tanker trips every year move crude oil on the St. Lawrence River between storage in Montreal and refining facilities outside of Quebec City. In Newfoundland and Labrador, about 90 oil tankers visit the Whiffen Head facility every year to load crude oil. Denise Mullen, director of environment, sustainability and indigenous relations at the Business Council of British Columbia, said this about the west coast tanker ban: “Comparable shipments face no such restrictions on the East Coast.... This unfair treatment reinforces Canada’s over-reliance on the U.S. market, where Canadian oil is sold at a discount, by restricting access to Asia-Pacific markets.” It is 100% clear that the Canadian energy sector is the financial backbone of our country. That is something that I and hundreds of thousands of Canadians engaged in the responsible production of Canadian oil and gas are rightfully proud of. In the face of this fact, it is not just self-defeating to maintain the west coast tanker ban but simply nonsensical. Denise Mullen, with the Business Council of British Columbia, as I mentioned, said it well. She said the tanker ban “results in billions in lost government revenues and reduced private investment at a time when our economy can least afford it.” The Liberal tanker ban was always about shutting down Canadian oil production, not safety or environmental protection. For more than half a decade now, the Liberal west coast tanker ban has been a roadblock to true nation building. It has not been just a piece of legislation. It has been a project killer. It is part of the Liberal anti-energy agenda that over the last decade effectively ended the northern gateway pipeline and the indigenous-owned Eagle Spirit energy project. We must pause to consider the gravity of these facts. If those projects had been allowed to move forward, Canada would already be providing energy security to countries like South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and India, not just talking about it. Our energy industry is world-leading in advanced technologies, environmental safety and impact; creates thousands of high-paying jobs; and fosters real economic reconciliation with indigenous communities. Our energy industry deserves our support, real and concrete support through action, not just words and high-minded ideas. Our Conservative caucus supported the government legislation that created the Major Projects Office. It was, and is, not the best solution to getting our country building again, but it was a small step in the right direction. Right now, we need to take another step in the right direction: repeal the tanker ban and further clear the way to making Canada a true energy superpower. We must focus on the facts, focus on the science, trust the experts in marine shipping who will work with local communities, work with indigenous communities, and work with fishers and other marine transporters and shippers to ensure that shipping of all descriptions will be safe and secure. We need to reject sea stories and hysteria and have confidence that we can ship crude oil and do it safely. I give the last word to Martha Hall Findlay, former Liberal member of Parliament, as I mentioned, who said, “I’m hoping that we see the revival of a federal government that brings pragmatism to governing the country.... Repealing [Bill] C-48 would be a sign of that happening.” I have, I am sure, just a few seconds left. I received an interesting email from a resident in North Vancouver. Her name is Andrea, and she writes, “I've been very frustrated with this tanker ban. No such thing set up for the east, so why B.C.? This has always seemed too extreme. We have tankers coming and going in the Salish Sea, Georgia Strait, Vancouver Harbour and especially the very narrow and relatively shallow Lions Gate Bridge entrance with no issues.” I will end there.

Mr. Speaker, I think the next member to speak to the bill will be able to give some insight into the viewpoints of indigenous communities on this. I would note that historically, a significant amount of indigenous community support was assembled and put into place through discussion, consultation and negotiation for northern gateway. As I mentioned in my remarks, the Eagle Spirit energy project itself was indigenous-led and -created. Both of those projects were terminated by a Liberal government with an anti-oil, anti-energy agenda. Work has been done. It has been thwarted to date. I would welcome the opportunity, once the way is clear, for private industry to undertake those obligations with respect to consultation.

Mr. Speaker, I will start by thanking my friend for the vote of confidence that I might have the several billion dollars required to advance a pipeline project, but I am afraid that is not within my capacities. Were circumstances and all things equal, I would absolutely be prepared to be a proponent for a pipeline project. I believe in pipelines. Our country has well in excess of 100,000 kilometres of pipelines operating safely beneath our soil, right now, this minute. The reason I think Canadians generally are not aware of that is that these pipelines operate safely, without incident, on an ongoing, daily basis. They have for decades, in many cases. We have had the luxury of forgetting about them. The question of public money is an important one. I do not believe there should be any public money in a pipeline. In fact, I do not believe there is any necessity for that. As long as the regulation is appropriate and the government is out of the way, the private sector will take care of this.

Mr. Speaker, the enthusiasm of my colleague always energizes me. The opportunity that we have is very significant. It has been made clear, and I have heard it in various contexts from various individuals involved in working in the energy industry, that a necessary precondition for a pipeline construction company to get serious about a pipeline is the ability to offtake the oil. A million barrels a day are not going into the ocean. They must go to a tanker, so there has to be, as a precondition, the ability to ship the oil.

Mr. Speaker, today, children, youth and families from across Canada are joining us on Parliament Hill. They are here with Children First Canada, a national charity headquartered in Calgary Signal Hill. They are calling on the government to table comprehensive legislation to ensure that kids are safe online. Among the youth here today are 12‑year‑old Zachary and 11‑year‑old twins Zahra and Leena. They were eight years old and seven years old respectively when the government pledged to put in place online safety legislation. Where are we today? We are seeing a rapidly changing digital landscape where social media, gaming platforms and now artificial intelligence are shaping children's lives in ways that can easily be harmful. In 2019, one in four children aged 12 to 17 reported being cyber-bullied. By age 25, one in five Canadians is diagnosed with a mental illness. We must do more to secure childhood for Canada's children. I urge the Liberals to stop the delay, break the pattern—

Mr. Speaker, Canada's ambassador to the U.S. says Canada is ready, willing and able to start the CUSMA review. The USTR says the U.S. is ready to talk, so what is the delay? This reminds me of a grade seven school dance. Everyone wants to dance, but no one will be the first to ask. There are 2.6 million Canadian jobs that rely on trade with the U.S., and tariffs are costing Canadians billions. When will the Prime Minister pick up the phone and get moving on the U.S. trade deal that he promised Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise in the House and speak on behalf of the citizens and residents of Calgary Signal Hill. I rise today to speak to Bill C-21, legislation that seeks to give effect to the Red River Métis Self-Government Recognition and Implementation Treaty. Let me be clear at the outset. Conservatives support reconciliation. We support the inherent rights of indigenous peoples, including Métis, first nations and Inuit communities, to self-government. We support the recognition of those rights in a manner that is respectful, inclusive and grounded in law. However, supporting reconciliation does not mean abandoning responsibility. It does not mean rushing forward with flawed legislation. It certainly does not mean ignoring the voices of those indigenous communities that are raising serious and legitimate concerns. That is precisely what is happening with Bill C-21. This bill asks Parliament to ratify a treaty of enormous consequence, one that establishes for the first time a Métis self-government agreement of this scale. It recognizes the Manitoba Métis Federation as the exclusive representative of the Red River Métis and grants it law-making authority over matters such as citizenship, governance and internal administration. On its face, that may sound like progress, but when we examine the details, serious problems emerge, problems that cannot and must not be ignored. First and foremost, there has been a clear and undeniable failure to consult. This treaty does not exist in a vacuum. It has implications far beyond Manitoba. The language contained within it, particularly in the preamble and key provisions, extends its potential reach across western Canada and even beyond. We see this in provisions that explicitly state that the geographic scope of the Red River Métis is not defined. We see it in language that acknowledges that Red River Métis citizens may be “located within what is now Manitoba as well as elsewhere inside and outside of Canada.” We see it in provisions that prevent any other indigenous organization from representing individuals who may be considered Red River Métis. Taken together, these clauses create ambiguity, ambiguity that has real-world consequences. What has been the response from other Métis governments? They are sounding the alarm. The Métis Nation of Ontario has warned that this treaty uses deliberate ambiguities to justify intervention in matters far outside Manitoba. It points to instances where the Manitoba Métis Federation has already sought consultation on projects in British Columbia, thousands of kilometres from the Red River. The Métis Nation Saskatchewan has expressed concern that the treaty could allow the Manitoba Métis Federation to supersede its authority within Saskatchewan. The Métis Nation of Alberta has gone even further, alleging that the agreement could enable the Manitoba federation to actively recruit members within Alberta, undermining existing Métis governance structures. These are not minor disagreements. These are fundamental disputes over identity, jurisdiction and rights, yet the government is asking us to proceed as though these concerns do not exist. Reconciliation cannot be built on division. If multiple Métis governments across this country are telling us that they were not properly consulted, that their rights may be impacted and that this treaty risks overriding their authority, then we have a duty to listen. We also have a legal duty. Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, recognizes and affirms the rights of indigenous peoples. The Supreme Court of Canada has made it clear that these rights are held by distinct communities, not by a single, centralized entity claiming to speak for all. In the Powley decision of that court, the court emphasized that Métis communities are diverse, with distinct histories and traditions across different regions. That principle is essential, yet this treaty risks collapsing that diversity into a single narrative, one that elevates the Red River Métis as the defining authority, potentially at the expense of other legitimate Métis communities. That is not reconciliation. That is exclusion. The concerns are not limited to Métis groups alone. First nations have also raised serious objections. The Dakota Tipi First Nation and the Canupawakpa Dakota Nation have gone to court, arguing that they were not consulted and that the treaty infringes upon their rights. They have made it clear that they never ceded their ancestral lands and that any agreement affecting those lands must involve them. The Treaty 5 nations have expressed “serious concerns” about the inclusion of the Manitoba Métis Federation in decision-making processes within their territory, calling it a direct affront to their sovereignty. These are not abstract concerns. These are constitutional issues, issues that go to the heart of the Crown's duty to consult and to accommodate, and if those duties have not been met, this treaty is vulnerable to legal challenge. In fact, it is not a question of whether there will be litigation; it is a question of how much. We have already seen similar agreements challenged in court. The Federal Court's decision in Metis Settlements General Council v. Canada raised concerns about overly expansive recognition that limits the Crown's ability to negotiate with other indigenous groups. Bill C-21 appears to repeat those same mistakes. By granting exclusive recognition to the Manitoba Métis Federation and embedding that recognition within a constitutionally protected treaty, the government would effectively lock in a framework that may disadvantage other Métis communities and do so in a way that cannot easily be undone or even corrected. Once ratified, this treaty will have constitutional status under sections 25 and 35. That means it could not be unilaterally amended or revoked. Any flaws, any oversights and any failures in consultation would be frozen in place. That is not careful governance. That is recklessness. There are also serious concerns about the scope of authority that would be granted under this treaty. The Manitoba Métis Federation would be empowered to create laws, establish institutions and even impose sanctions, including fines and imprisonment, for violations of those laws. While there are provisions that attempt to reconcile conflicts with federal law, the reality is that this would create a complex and potentially conflicting legal landscape. Even more concerning is the implication that these laws could apply beyond Manitoba, given the treaty's refusal to define geographic boundaries and its recognition of citizens located across Canada. This raises fundamental questions about jurisdiction, enforcement and the rule of law. Could a government created under this treaty exercise authority over individuals in another province? How would conflicts between provincial laws and Métis laws be resolved? What mechanisms would ensure accountability and consistency? These questions remain unanswered. There are also fiscal implications that deserve scrutiny. The treaty would commit Canada to ensuring that the Manitoba Métis Federation has the financial capacity to meet its expenditure needs. It contemplates ongoing transfer payments and future agreements on taxation, yet we have little clarity on the long-term costs, the accountability mechanisms or the impact on other indigenous communities seeking similar arrangements. At a time when Canadians are already facing economic uncertainty and headwinds, Parliament has a responsibility to ensure that any new fiscal commitments are transparent, sustainable and fair. That has not been demonstrated here. Finally, I want to address a broader concern, one that goes to the legitimacy of this agreement. The Manitoba Métis Federation is incorporated as a legal entity, MMF Inc. While that may be appropriate for administrative purposes, it raises important questions about the nature of this treaty. A treaty in the constitutional sense is meant to be a nation-to-nation agreement. It reflects a relationship between distinct peoples, not between the Crown and a corporate body. By structuring this agreement through an incorporated entity, the government risks blurring that distinction and undermining the very principles it claims to uphold. None of this is to deny the importance of recognizing Métis self-government, a goal we all share in the House, but recognition must be implemented effectively. It must be inclusive, be legally sound and reflect the rights and voices of all affected communities. Bill C-21 as currently drafted would fail on all three counts. It would exclude key stakeholders, introduce legal ambiguity, and risk deepening divisions within and between indigenous communities. That is why Conservatives cannot support the bill in its current form. We are calling on the government to do the responsible thing: to pause, listen and engage in meaningful consultation with all affected parties. Let us bring this bill to committee; hear from Métis governments across the country, first nation leaders, legal experts and those whose rights may be impacted; and do the hard work of getting this right, because reconciliation is not achieved through shortcuts. It is built through trust, dialogue and respect. Canadians expect us to uphold these principles. Indigenous communities deserve nothing less. For those reasons, I urge all members of the House to oppose Bill C-21 in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, fundamentally, of course, our committee process in the House is for doing that, to take the opportunity to hear from individuals who can provide experience, expertise and knowledge. The process is intended to refine and improve legislation. Certainly I think that is a requirement in this case. I express only my disappointment that the initial bill as presented to the House has not incorporated more of that consideration, more of those voices. When we in the opposition can locate those parties that say they have expressed these things to the government yet they are not reflected in legislation, it moves the starting point that much farther back. Can this be improved in committee as we support the general goal? Yes, there is a lot of work to be done there, and I look forward to the House's accomplishing its objectives.

Mr. Speaker, it certainly does appear that there are voices that have stated that they have not been consulted, so whatever exact process was undertaken, it appears to have come up short at this point in time. To the extent that additional voices need to be heard, it is up to the proponents of the bill to determine the best way to do that, to bring information to the House and to satisfy the House that those parties have been duly and appropriately consulted, not just out of legal and moral obligations but also out of the obligation of sound judgment that the House must use to bring legislation to our country as a whole. When a group such the Manitoba Métis Federation is to enter into a historic agreement with the Government of Canada with far-reaching, important implications, we have to get it right.

Mr. Speaker, undoubtedly, the issue of consultation is extremely important. Again, the greater the magnitude is of the legislation, its impacts and the changes it would effect, the greater the necessity for broad consultation is. I think this would be obvious to anyone giving it some consideration. Clearly, consultation cannot be selective. It is not a process of calling the people who may support one's position, those with whom one is friendly, and seeking only that input. Consultation needs to be broad, and it needs to consider the various parties that would be affected by the legislation that is proposed. As I said earlier, when we in the opposition have been able to identify groups that have spoken out in opposition to this legislation on the basis of a failure to effectively consult, it is difficult for us to understand how the government could be satisfied with the work it has done to bring the legislation forward. It seems obvious to me that when groups speak out to say they have not been consulted on this, the obvious answer would be to consult with them, to hear what their perspectives are, to understand why they feel they would be impacted, and then to undertake the duty to consult.

Mr. Speaker, that is definitely a question of concern. It is one of the problems with the legislation in its current form: simply that the extent of the impacts the legislation would have are not completely understood. As I mentioned, once this were enshrined as a Government of Canada treaty, any kind of changes or adjustments would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to make, so we need to understand. It is not always easy to look into the future. If anybody in the House today has a good crystal ball, I would be happy to borrow it from time to time, but legal scholars, people in government and people with expertise in certain areas are entrusted with that task all the time. It would be the purpose of committee to get information from people who can project what the impact of the legislation would be, based on their own experiences and on their knowledge. We need to draw on that. It is our view, as the Conservative Party, that the task was not undertaken fully and completely. Instead, we have been left with a bill that is not fully ready for passage before the House. To return to some of those processes to improve the legislation is our goal.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources promised that Canada would “do its part” to bring down oil prices, so this question follows: What exactly are we going to do? Today is the day that we are smacked in the face with the outcome of more than 10 years of Liberal “keep it in the ground” law and policy respecting our petroleum industry. The fact is that the Liberal government has starved our energy industry of essential strategic infrastructure. Bill C-69 is an unworkable approval permit law. The Liberals have blocked pipelines and banned oil tanker shipping. Fortunately, my private member's bill would at least repeal the west coast oil tanker ban. When it comes to strategic reserves, thankfully Pierre Poilievre has proposed the emergency energy supply plan that will allow us to assist our friends abroad in times of crisis and would blunt energy shocks that further drive up the cost of living and hurt Canadians. I call on the Liberal government to adopt our plan—

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-264, An Act to repeal certain restrictions on shipping. Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a private member's bill that would repeal the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act. For almost a decade, the Liberal west coast oil tanker ban has stifled our energy industry and held back our country. In 2026, Canadian energy is more important here at home and around the world than it has ever been. Our allies and trading partners are anxious to purchase energy from a reliable and stable partner. Canada is that partner, and the world needs more Canadian energy. Hundreds of tankers safely navigate the St. Lawrence River and Vancouver Harbour every year, yet the west coast oil tanker ban was put in place to suppress the Canadian petroleum industry. In fact, it killed projects like the indigenous-owned Eagle Spirit pipeline and has cost our country billions of dollars. This private member's bill is about nation building. It is about leveraging our abundant resources to help our allies, our friends and our families. It is about taking action here at home so we can have success around the world. Conservatives want Canada to be an energy superpower. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today on behalf of the residents of Calgary Signal Hill to speak to Bill C-18, an act implementing the Canada-Indonesia comprehensive economic partnership agreement. Let me begin by stating clearly that Conservatives believe in trade. Canada has always been a trading nation. From the earliest days of Confederation, our prosperity has depended on our ability to reach beyond our borders and sell Canadian goods and expertise to the world. For that reason, we approach trade agreements with a constructive mindset. When agreements expand market access, reduce tariffs and create opportunities for Canadian producers, we welcome them. At a time when natural resources are more critical than ever, we are a truly fortunate nation. Canada holds some of the world's most abundant natural resources, including oil reserves that have the potential to make Canada one of the most influential and prosperous nations on earth. For too long, we have let outdated ideology and self-sabotage stand in the way of our potential. In 2026, the world is shifting under our feet, and we have no excuse not to be an export powerhouse. Indonesia is an opportunity for Canadian trade and Canadian influence. It is the fourth most populous country in the world, home to more than 270 million people. It has one of the fastest-growing economies in the Indo-Pacific region. It has a rapidly expanding middle class and increasing demand for food, technology, natural resources and energy. Energy is so central to our standard of living here at home and to that of all people around the world yet is something that the Liberal government has neglected. When the Minister of International Trade appeared at the international trade committee hearing last month to answer questions about Bill C-18, I noted that the Asia Pacific Foundation has produced a report highlighting the growing relationship between the United States and Indonesia in the energy sector, particularly with respect to oil and liquefied natural gas. Indonesia imported roughly 322,000 barrels of crude oil per day in 2024, and it is dependent on energy imports for 40% of its national energy demand, which will only grow as the Indonesian economy expands and more Indonesians are lifted out of poverty. It seems we are missing the boat on this opportunity. Not only is the United States stepping up to meet Indonesia's demand for oil, but the minister informed the international trade committee that the conversation with the Indonesians was focused on sustainable energy. What he said was that “in Indonesia they also want to go to more sustainable energy. When they talk about sustainable, they talk about nuclear and about LNG, which is a bit lower in terms of carbon emissions when you compare it to crude.” That was on February 5 of this year. It would seem from the minister's evidence to the committee that Indonesia is not interested in oil, would it not? As it worked out, 15 days after the minister spoke to the committee, Indonesia signed an agreement with the United States that covers, among other things, $15 billion per year in American energy exports to Indonesia, including $3.5 billion of liquefied petroleum gas and $4.5 billion of crude oil. As if that was not enough, just a few days ago it was reported that Indonesia will be increasing its crude oil imports from the United States due to the war in the Persian Gulf. I hope the irony is not lost on anyone listening today. As I said to the minister at the hearing, “It strikes me that we may have missed the boat in terms of our ability to export those products into this marketplace.” On that day, I used the word “may”. I am now certain, as I think we all are now, that Canada's energy industry missed what could have been a magnificent opportunity for growth. We allowed this opportunity to go to the United States. The Liberal government makes blunders like these because it fundamentally sees energy as a source of embarrassment rather than a source of power. Liberals can talk all they want about making Canada an energy superpower, but actions, as always, speak louder than words. Becoming an energy superpower requires more than rhetoric, more than speeches and more than press conferences. It requires action, infrastructure and legislative, regulatory and policy certainty. Above all, it requires a clear commitment to ensuring that Canadian energy can reach global markets. Maybe the reason Indonesia was not interested in discussing Canadian oil, as per the minister, is that it knew we cannot be relied upon to supply it. Yes, it is true that LNG Canada is finally up and running, but let us be honest. One project delayed by years of red tape and regulatory hurdles is not a strategy. It is a lucky break. We have managed just that one LNG facility, in Kitimat. Our competitors on the gulf coast of the United States, however, are building export terminals at a record pace, and they are not just engaging with Indonesia. They are signing contracts. They are eating our lunch because their government views energy as an asset, not a liability and not something to be phased out. During that same international trade committee hearing, I reminded the minister of the Liberal government's decision to cancel the northern gateway pipeline roughly a decade ago. I pointed out that had that project gone ahead, Canada would today be in a far stronger position to export crude oil to Asian markets. Canada should be well positioned to supply that demand. We have vast energy resources, world-class producers, workers who are second to none anywhere in the world and some of the highest environmental standards in the world. We have just chosen to put obstacle after obstacle in our own way for no good reason. The obstacles include Bill C-69 and the tanker ban affecting the northern coast of British Columbia. With these laws in place, no new pipelines will be built to carry Canadian crude oil to market, even though the ports of Prince Rupert and Kitimat can safely host oil tankers, and projects like the Eagle Spirit pipeline can reduce our reliance on the port of Vancouver for west coast energy exports. The foregoing is why today in the House I introduced a private member's bill that would repeal the tanker ban on the west coast of B.C. I introduced that bill because I believe Canada must confront a certain truth. If we want to become an energy superpower, we cannot simultaneously block the infrastructure necessary to export our energy. Right now, roughly 240 tankers move crude oil every year between a storage facility in Montreal, via the St. Lawrence River, and a refining facility beside Quebec City. In Newfoundland and Labrador, approximately 90 international tankers visit the Whiffen Head facility to export oil brought in by offshore shuttle tankers. There is no logical reason tanker traffic is unacceptable in Kitimat or Prince Rupert but just fine in Quebec City and Vancouver. Anyone working in the energy sector will tell us that the tanker ban represents one of the the most significant barriers to expanding Canadian crude oil exports to global markets. The CBC published an article yesterday asking this question: “With a crucial oil artery blocked near Iran,” and that would be the Strait of Hormuz, “can Canada fill the gap in global supply?” It shows just how much Canada has to contribute in today's turbulent world and just how much of an opportunity is being missed. It is not just an opportunity to boost our energy sector but also an opportunity to support our allies as they look to diversify away from dictator oil. The CBC article ended on a disturbing note. It quoted Heather Exner-Pirot, director of energy, natural resources and environment at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, who stated, “in a situation where you have this Iran conflict and you're seeing 20 per cent of global supply impacted, when push comes to shove, you'll start to see countries...importing some Russian supply”. This is not something we want to see happen. Canada's energy sector has long been one of the pillars of our national economy. It generates billions of dollars in revenue that fund public services, supports hundreds of thousands of jobs across the country and drives investment and innovation in communities from coast to coast to coast. Trade agreements like this one with Indonesia must be part of a broader strategy to strengthen Canada's economic position in the world, and that strategy must include all sectors of the Canadian economy, including energy. Trade with Indonesia is a good thing, but a trade agreement is not worth the paper it is written on if the Liberals see it as principally a tool for making themselves look good at home. Canada must be a leading supplier of oil and natural gas to the world. Our allies need it. We can make that happen.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I have the advantage here of being somebody who is not tied to the past. Quite frankly, I am looking forward. I am looking forward to what the opportunities are for our country, what things we can build and what we can achieve. I have no interest in the Liberal failures of the past. I am interested only in what we can do going forward. Trade agreements are a good thing, but we have to have our act together domestically in order to be a valuable trading partner to the world.

Mr. Speaker, a trade agreement gives us opportunities to work with other countries around the world. We are not going to immediately be in any position to impose standards or our standards of living upon a trading partner, but it is the beginning of a relationship, and in that, we can grow over time to appreciate different practices. Canada has many of the world's leading environmental, agricultural, industrial and energy practices. When we trade with other nations, we have the opportunity to exchange that expertise and improve circumstances in both countries.

Mr. Speaker, quite interestingly, there were some discussions on that very subject earlier today that I was part of. When we look at an export relationship of about $400 million, two LNG tankers would be equivalent to that in terms of value. It is obvious that our greatest opportunity to increase trade, to provide for Indonesia and to provide opportunities for export for Canadian companies is in energy. The value is tremendous, beneficial for both sides and something that we are well behind on because of our domestic situation. We must get to work on that so we can be an effective international trading partner.

Mr. Speaker, the month of March is Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month. Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths in Canada, even though it is preventable and highly treatable when caught early. We must make a critical shift in our health care policy to lower the standard screening age from 50 years to 45 years for average-risk Canadians. The medical evidence is clear that early-onset cases are rising, and catching this disease five years sooner will save Canadian lives. My own brother is a colon cancer survivor, and eight years since a timely diagnosis and treatment, he is alive and well. Today three cancer survivors, Melissa Groff, Michael Groves and Jennifer Eppel, are here in Ottawa to advocate for policy change. Together their voices turn statistics into stories and policy changes into hope. To all Canadians, please get screened for colorectal cancer. This simple step can save one's life.