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.