Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Portage—Lisgar.
I am very pleased to take part in this debate, which is based on good will. Through this debate, we seek consensus in the House so we can move Canada forward to meet the challenges we face in 2026.
Now more than ever, Canada is at a crossroads. We need to make the right decisions, secure our autonomy and demonstrate our sovereignty. We have seen this government take some steps in the right direction. We have some suggestions for additional steps it can take, and we hope the government will take them to heart. That is why I am making the following remarks.
In my mind, this motion and debate are goodwill propositions to address the challenges that Canada has to face in 2026.
Canada has everything we need. Other countries would go to war to get the natural resources we have. We need to unlock the potential of our natural resources in a smart and respectful way. It must also be done autonomously, to ensure that Canada has autonomy when it comes to natural resources and energy. This will ensure that we are able to sell these resources abroad and get revenues that will help develop Canada and its natural resources to their full potential.
That is why our motion recommends certain courses of action to the government, such as repealing the legislation arising from Bill C-69 concerning assessments and other things. I would like to remind the House that I introduced Bill C-375 two years ago as a private member. My bill essentially called for one assessment per project. I was advocating for one project, one review, as opposed to two contradictory, competing reviews that overlap with one another. I wanted one project, one review. Even the Bloc Québécois agreed with our bill in principle. Unfortunately, the Liberals voted against it two years ago. We were amazed to hear the King repeat our argument word for word in the Speech from the Throne: “one project, one review”. As I was saying earlier, the government has taken some steps in the right direction, and this is one example. However, we believe that the legislation arising from Bill C-69 should be repealed.
The same goes for the oil tanker moratorium and the industrial carbon tax. I mention them because those paragons of virtue over there never stop lecturing everyone about the industrial tax. For nine years, these people called us Conservatives all sorts of names because we wanted to abolish the consumer carbon tax, but what did they do? A year ago, they changed their tune. They reversed course on the carbon tax issue and got elected because of it. It is wild, because they insulted us for nine years, and then they reversed course. Today, they say it is important to maintain the federal industrial tax because it is important for other countries. That is exactly what they said about the carbon tax for nine years, and then they scrapped it. They started down this road. Now they have to see it through.
There is also the emissions cap and the federal electric vehicle sales mandate. I will not go into details about my personal life except to say that I have been driving a fully electric car for about two and a half years now. Yes, a Conservative can drive an electric car. Guess what? I bought it used, so it was half the price. Even better is that I did not get a rebate, and there was no mandate in place. That is the responsible way to sell cars and to offer consumers electric cars. They are not for everyone, but if they meet certain needs and people want to get one, then there is no need for a mandate, as is currently the case. This is an effective demonstration.
We also have other proposals, such as rewarding provinces, businesses and workers who invest in Canada first. Our leader made a very positive case when he proposed eliminating the capital gains tax for reinvestments in Canadian businesses. That is a sound solution that deserves full consideration.
We also need to create a tax credit for reinvestment in Canada to spur domestic industrial activity. We should provide bonuses for interprovincial free trade as well. Canada is a world champion of free trade, and yet sadly, its 10 provinces have a lot of barriers. The federal government has removed some of these barriers at the federal level, but the provinces must be encouraged to do the same, which is why we are proposing free trade bonuses and measures to protect Canadian innovation. We have options and avenues that are worth considering. We have already offered our collaboration and support.
Some members will recall that, a few months ago, this government passed Bill C‑5, which sought to break down our siloed approach as a country in order to unlock our natural resource potential. Although it did not go far enough and should have gone further, we knew we were on the right path. That is why the official opposition offered its full support. Bill C‑5 includes the substance of Bill C‑375, which I introduced. The Liberals voted against my bill, while the Bloc agreed with the principle, which we now find in Bill C‑5.
Yes, some good things have been done, but the issue is that, if we want to face the challenges, we need to live up to our responsibilities. The Liberals got elected a year ago by saying “elbows up” to take on the White House. However, instead of “elbows up”, we have been seeing “thumbs up”. On two occasions, when the Prime Minister went to the White House, he ended up doing a “thumbs up” with the President. A few days ago, in Switzerland, he lectured everyone about standing up. Funnily enough, he did not talk about “thumbs up”. No, he did not talk about those things.
That is why consistency is important, especially since, unfortunately, we are not seeing results. According to the government, Bill C-5 would enable our country to realize its full potential as an energy superpower by creating new trade and energy corridors that would diversify our economy. That is all well and good, but those are words, not actions.
Now more than ever, we must find ways to assert our sovereignty, because Canada is facing major challenges, particularly with our neighbour, the United States, which brings to mind the very interesting and intelligent remarks made by President John F. Kennedy right here in the House of Commons on May 17, 1961.
He said, “Geography has made us neighbours. History has made us friends. Economics has made us partners. And necessity has made us allies.”
More than ever, we need to get back to this spirit, especially today. Why is this? It is because there are two anniversaries we can celebrate today. First of all, Mr. Jeremy Hansen is 50 years old today.
Mr. Hansen is the Canadian astronaut who will be going to the moon aboard the Artemis II mission, which, as we know, is American. Yes, Canada can work constructively with the Americans. I want to recount one of the great events in our diplomatic history. Exactly 46 years ago today, six American hostages were released in Tehran. We were the best of friends at the time. While the United States was facing the worst diplomatic crisis in its history because a country had allowed terrorists to occupy the American embassy and hold victims hostage for 444 days, Canada sheltered six American diplomats for 84 days in the residences of our diplomats, including, of course, Ken Taylor, the ambassador.
Canada has had some great diplomatic moments with the Americans. We all wish we could return to that, but it will not happen overnight. That is why, now more than ever, we must develop our autonomy in terms of our natural resources, our economy, our knowledge and our energy. The proposals we have made to the government today would do just that. We all want the House to continue on this path to ensure Canadian autonomy by adopting this motion.