David McKenzie

Mr. Speaker, on October 19, the citizens of Alberta will vote on the question of Alberta pursuing separation from Canada. Unequivocally, I urge Albertans to reject separation as the path forward for our province. Without question, the Liberal government in Ottawa has worked against our province over the last 10 years, and those actions have led some to believe that separation is the only answer. [more]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this House and speak on behalf of the residents of Calgary Signal Hill. It is an unfortunate fact that Canada's economy is stagnating. There has been 0% growth reported for July 2026, with manufacturing, retail and wholesale trade pulling back in our country. Unemployment is above 6%, with youth unemployment more than double that. Projections for [more]

Mr. Speaker, certainly, no person in Canada who wishes to be housed should be unhoused. However, what is clear in Canada is that the federal government has among the worst ways to try to deliver housing effectively in Canada. Prime Minister We are now on our fourth major Liberal effort to bring in housing improvements in Canada, without success. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has projected [more]

Mr. Speaker, the question, or, really, the statement with a wee little question tucked on the end of it, really belies a fundamental philosophical difference between that side of the aisle and this side, that the government should be directing our economy and that no project should go forward without government approval, political approval and government investment. I do not believe that [more]

Mr. Speaker, we employ in Canada, in various aspects, expert panels that regulate different aspects of our industrial base. That expertise does, in my understanding, and should include representation across all stakeholders within economic development projects and status. We have a system in that respect that works. As I indicated previously, that is where our decision-making should be. It should [more]

Prices go up, costs go up and Canadians are less well off.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Dovgal, can you confirm for me that an industrial carbon tax adds to the costs of virtually or indeed every good that is produced or transported in Canada? Is that true?

It's a pretty straight equation, yet we persist. Do you have a sense of why that is? You must have had conversations with members of the government about why they're continuing to pursue an industrial carbon tax.

That's fair enough.

It sounds like we have a fair way to go.

Clearly we need some focus on that type of access.

I'm happy to put the question to either of you. My research indicates that today there's somewhere in the neighbourhood of 14,000 kilometres of petroleum pipe operating under the soil in the province of Quebec. I think very little of that, actually—less than 1,000 kilometres—is oil. Thus, the vast majority is natural gas. I'm wondering if you can give us any ideas as to how we can convince our [more]

You would probably join me in saying that you have no interest in seeing oil spills on our west coast. I know that's a serious concern for residents of that area, including indigenous communities. How do you feel about the safety of our marine transport sector?

Is there anything respecting road and rail at this point?

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Picking up on that subject of discussion, are you aware of any announcements of infrastructure spending that the federal government has made that are going to support some of the access issues you've just mentioned?

Ms. Tronnes, I'd like to ask you about some of the benefits available with our conventional resources. If I'm correct, it's an area that you've done some work on, in particular the advantages of getting liquefied natural gas to our eastern coast and eastern ports for export. Is that correct?