Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage Presents Three Reports on AI Impacts and Heritage Months

House Publications

The Debates are the report—transcribed, edited, and corrected—of what is said in the House. The Journals are the official record of the decisions and other transactions of the House. The Order Paper and Notice Paper contains the listing of all items that may be brought forward on a particular sitting day, and notices for upcoming items.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

April 14, 2026
- Order Paper and Notice Paper
- Journals
- Debates (Hansard)
Status of House Business User Guide XML PDF

45th PARLIAMENT,

                        1st SESSION

EDITED HANSARD • No. 102

CONTENTS

Tuesday, April 14, 2026

House of Commons Debates Volume 152 No. 102 1st SESSION 45th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

Tuesday, April 14, 2026

Speaker: The Honourable Francis Scarpaleggia

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayer

Routine Proceedings

[Routine Proceedings]

(1000) [English ]

Committees of the House

Canadian Heritage

[Expand] Lisa Hepfner (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as chair of the permanent Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, I have the great honour and pleasure of presenting three reports to the House of Commons today. First, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, entitled “Impacts of Artificial Intelligence on the Creative Industries”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to the report. Second, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, in relation to Bill S-227, an act respecting Arab heritage month. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment. Third, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, in relation to Bill S-210, an act respecting Ukrainian heritage month. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment. It is clearly a very busy and very productive committee. [Expand] Kevin Waugh (Saskatoon South, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Conservatives who sit on the Canadian heritage committee, I would like to offer a dissenting report that we did in heritage on AI. I offer that to us today. We had an extensive meeting but, over the course of weeks, we had some concerns with the report that is coming out. Citizenship and Immigration

[Expand] Julie Dzerowicz (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as chair of the immigration and citizenship committee, I am presenting two reports today. I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, entitled “Reconstituting Canada’s International Student Program”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report. In addition, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, in relation to the motion adopted on Wednesday, March 25, regarding Canada's immigration system. [Expand] Costas Menegakis (Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(b), I rise as a member of the official opposition supporting the dissenting opinion appended to the report. We found that the government failed to consult communities on whether they could sustainably handle the massive influx of international students. While institutions collected record profits, international students were left at food banks and suffering from the heightened local housing crisis their large numbers were causing. The lack of oversight from the government has recently come to light in the Auditor General's report, which found that the government investigated only 2.6% of the 153,000 suspected cases of international student fraud. For these reasons, our recommendations include, among others, one, that international study permit approval be tied directly to regional housing availability, health care capacity and employment; two, that there be stronger language proficiency requirements to ensure student success; and three, that financial liability for institutions should be established when students overstay or file asylum claims. I ask that the dissenting report opinion be appended to the committee report. (1005)

Facilitating Agricultural Regulatory Modernization Act

[Expand] David Bexte (Bow River, CPC) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-273, an act to amend the Feeds Act, the Fertilizers Act, the Seeds Act, the Pest Control Products Act, and the Food and Drugs Act. He said: Mr. Speaker, the people of Alberta did not send me here to sit quietly while farms are run out of business by bureaucrats in Ottawa. Farmers sent me here to fix what is broken. Today, I am introducing the FARM act, a simple and practical way to make life better for Canadian farmers and more affordable for every family that depends on them. For years, our farmers have been buried under layers of red tape, rules that do not make sense, delays that cost them money and barriers that keep them from using the same safe, proven tools their competitors already rely on in the United States, the EU, the U.K., Australia and New Zealand. Meanwhile, our farmers are told to wait: to wait for approvals, to wait for reviews and to wait while their costs climb and their yields fall. That is not protecting Canadians. That is holding them back. When farmers fall behind, Canadians feel it at the grocery store. The FARM act would change that. It would create a trusted system where products are already approved by at least two of our closest allies and can be made available to Canadian farmers within 90 days. That is not years but days. Canadian reviews still happen, safety remains paramount and the minister will retain the authority to step in if there are concerns. This bill gives ranchers in Strathmore the medications they need to keep their herds healthy. It gives potato farmers in P.E.I. the inputs they need to produce more food. There is no new bureaucracy and no new spending, just common sense. It was written by a farmer for my colleagues in the field. It means stronger yields, lower costs, more food produced right here at home and stronger rural communities. It means some relief for Canadians who are tired of watching their grocery bills climb higher. Canadian farmers are the best in the world. They need the government to get out of the way so they can grow food for families. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Petitions

Small Businesses

[Expand] Brad Vis (Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have multiple petitions to present today. The petitioners in Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford recognize that the total cost of regulation to Canadian businesses has reached $51.5 billion, with $17.9 billion of that for red tape alone. Small businesses have spent an average of 735 hours per year complying with regulatory requirements that provide little or no public benefit. Small businesses pay over five times more per employee than large firms to comply with regulation, making unnecessary red tape a major barrier to growth and a drag on Canada's productivity and competitiveness. The petitioners therefore call upon the Government of Canada to immediately review and eliminate redundant regulations and overlapping requirements that disproportionately harm small businesses. Public Safety

[Expand] Brad Vis (Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the second petition I would like to present today is on behalf of residents of Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford who are raising concerns about individuals linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a listed terrorist organization in Canada. The petitioners warn that such actors threaten national security and may be operating within Canada. They also note that sanctions and the closure of Canada's embassy in Iran have delayed immigration applications and prolonged family separation. They call upon the Government of Canada to enforce its designation of the IRGC by investigating and removing affiliated individuals where warranted, freezing linked assets and expediting immigration processes for affected Iranian nationals while supporting the Iranian people and protecting democratic values. (1010) Peacekeeping

[Expand] Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour today to table this petition on behalf of petitioners who are part of the peace train movement. They highlight that for lasting peace, military deterrence must take place within the context of long-term solutions identified through research and analysis. They also note that, within its NATO funding commitment, Canada can and should establish a national centre dedicated to peacebuilding and should contribute much more funding, training, equipment and personnel to UN peacekeeping, and that Canada's pre-eminent free institutions dedicated to peacebuilding have been terminated, including the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre and the Canadian Institute for Peace and Human Security. They point to a national defence report that recommends that the Government of Canada re-establish the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre with a mandate that includes, but is not limited to, conflict research, conflict prevention, mediation and civilian protection. Lastly, they recommend that the Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association also advocate for the re-establishment of the former peacekeeping centre. The petitioners' call to action is to establish and fund, as a fundamental part of Canada's increasing commitment to defence and security, an independent Canadian centre for peace dedicated to peacekeeping and global security through research, education, policy and training in conflict resolution, diplomacy and peace operations for Canadian civilians, police and military personnel, and the international community. As members can imagine, this is a timely petition given the global conflict that we are enduring right now. Public Safety

[Expand] Rob Morrison (Columbia—Kootenay—Southern Rockies, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present petition e-7104, with over 700 signatures. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to establish a comprehensive legal framework to protect minors from predatory drug dealers; to monitor social media, target online trafficking and require social media companies to implement policies to prevent it; to enact a federal law against child criminal exploitation based on the approach of the United Kingdom's crime and policing bill; and to empower and require police to thoroughly and effectively investigate all reports of drug trafficking and criminal exploitation involving minors, and to provide witness protection when needed. Sixty per cent of all illicit drug users in Canada are young people aged 15 to 24, and drug overdose is the leading cause of death among youth ages 10 to 18 in several Canadian provinces. Agriculture

[Expand] Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my first petition is being presented on behalf of citizens and residents across Canada who are calling on the government to reverse the planned cuts of 665 AAFC staff and closures of the organic and regenerative research program at the Swift Current office and the Lacombe, Guelph, Quebec City, Indian Head, Scott, Portage la Prairie and Nappan research facilities that serve our agriculture industry. Religious Freedom

[Expand] Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the second petition that I am presenting today is in regard to Bill C-9. I have many petitions on this issue, which has passed from this House to the other place. I have been requested to continue to present them because the bill will come back. The petitioners are hoping that this particular concern around the ability of all scriptures for all religions in our country to be protected as they are supposed to be is addressed and that, in the future when the House on the other side is doing the research, it will truly do its job and have the witnesses and stakeholders that will present what we hope will bring what Canadians want, an end to Bill C-9.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Expand] Mike Kelloway (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport and Internal Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand. [Expand] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. [For text of questions and responses, see Written Questions website ]

Government Orders

[Business of Supply]

(1015) [English ]

Business of Supply

Opposition Motion—Fuel Taxes

[Expand] Jasraj Hallan (Calgary East, CPC) moved: That, given that, (i) gas prices have soared upwards, (ii) Canadians now pay almost 20 per cent more at the pumps than Americans due to high Liberal taxes, the House call on the government to adopt the Conservative plan to save Canadians 25 cents-a-litre by removing federal taxes on gas and diesel for the rest of 2026, including: (a) removing the Fuel Excise Tax for the remainder of 2026, which costs Canadians 10 cents-a-litre; (b) removing the GST on gasoline and diesel for the remainder of 2026, which costs Canadians 8 cents-a-litre; (c) permanently removing the Fuel Standards tax, which costs Canadians 7 cents-a-litre; and (d) permanently removing the industrial carbon tax, which will rise to $170 a tonne, and is projected to shrink the economy by 1.3 per cent and lead to 50,000 job losses. He said: Mr. Speaker, I am going to be splitting my time with the member for York—Durham. The great Winston Churchill once said, “The idea that a nation can tax itself into prosperity is one of the crudest delusions which has ever fuddled the human mind.” After more than 10 years of the Liberal government, life has become miserable for Canadians, more unaffordable and unsafe than ever in the history of this country. Families are struggling just to get by, and they cannot afford even the basic necessities. They are just looking for a break. Recently, the Liberal Prime Minister said that he is trying to find ways to save on gas. Well, we presented an idea. We put the solution in front of him: Remove all federal fuel taxes temporarily for Canadians, to save them money at the pump. From what I understand, the Prime Minister did what a typical Liberal would do and just recently took our idea, but he did not take the whole idea. He took only parts of the idea. Our goal was to save on the GST, the excise tax and, of course, the Liberals' hidden carbon tax repackaged as the clean fuel standard, which will go up. This would have saved Canadians 25¢ per litre at the pump. We have to look at what is going on right now. Of course there are external factors that all countries are facing. Everyone is facing those same factors, but we have to look at why Canadians are paying, at a minimum, 20¢ per litre more than Americans are for fuel. The difference is the federal fuel taxes, so we put this solution in front of the Liberals, but, again, they did not implement it fully. Canadians would have saved 25¢ per litre for gas at the pump. Not just everyday Canadians would save money. It would help our farmers. It would help our transporters. It would help in many different ways. It could also help bring down the cost of food. We know that after 10 years under the Liberals, Canadians are faced with the highest food inflation in the entire G7. Canadians have the highest household debt in the entire G7. We know that Canadians are struggling, because 2.2 million Canadians going to a food bank every single month is not a statistic that anyone should brag about. The cost of food is out of control in this country, and the solutions Conservatives are proposing would help to lower the cost of food and of everyday life for Canadians. Overall, they would also save Canadians $1,200 on gas just this year. That is a significant savings. Even when people go to the grocery store, they can feel the difference when they are there. Not that long ago, people could get by for a week on 100 dollars' worth of groceries. One hundred dollars gets them nowhere these days under the Liberals, because they made the cost of food so expensive. Their industrial carbon tax, their clean fuel standard, which they refuse to drop, is making life more expensive. It makes food more expensive. That is why there is so much food insecurity. In my riding of Calgary East, the Salvation Army does amazing work. It just reported a 500% increase in the usage of its food security program. That 500% increase is because the cost of food keeps going up. These are not numbers or statistics about which anyone should say, “Is that really a first world country where 2.2 million Canadians are going to a food bank every single month?” Canadians are overtaxed. In fact, Canadians pay more in taxes than they do for food, shelter and clothing, in other words necessities, combined. That is the result of overspending, overprinting money and flooding the market with cheap cash. Who benefits from that? It is always Liberal insiders. For example, there is the $90-billion boondoggle called the Alto high-speed rail project. The finance minister has a supposed conflict of interest in that too, and it would be wealthy Liberal insiders who would get contracts and money from those contracts. They are the only ones who would get rewarded. Who gets left with the bill? It is Canadians. Everyday Canadians have to face the reality of the corrupt Liberal government. (1020) The clean fuel standard is also a tax on everything. As I said before, the farmers who are growing our food, the shippers who are transporting our food, and even the people who are storing the food all get hit with either the clean fuel standard or the industrial carbon tax, or both. Sometimes this is in hidden ways, but these costs do not stay just with the farmers and the shippers. They actually get put into the cost of the food at the end of the day. Canadians who are buying the food and are seeing food costs out of control are the ones who have to pay these costs, and it is always Liberal insiders who get to benefit from these costs. The Liberals do not have any control over what they are doing with Canadians' finances. In fact we thought Justin Trudeau was Canada's worst money manager, but the Prime Minister said, “Hold my champagne. I can do much worse.” He doubled Justin Trudeau's deficit, if we can believe that. It is something we thought no one could do. It was item number one once he became Prime Minister. Removing the GST, the excise tax and the carbon tax 2.0, the clean fuel standard, would help the truckers and the farmers. It would help the cost of food go down. That is why Conservatives are proposing this: We know that Canadians are struggling with the cost of food. We all hear it in our ridings from moms who have to choose between less nutritious food or no food that week. Some of them are starving, just so their kids can eat. These are the choices Canadians are having to make. Seniors are having to make these choices too. There are people in food bank lines who had never used a food bank in their life. They used to proudly volunteer at the food banks, and now they are standing in line for food. That is the result of the Liberal government. It is increasing costs, and there is no looking back for the Liberals. They will increase the industrial carbon tax and will increase the clean fuel standard, and this is only going to make things more expensive for Canadians. The Liberals will argue that it might leave a hole in their budget. We are surprised that they would even care about that, with all the money they print and spend. However, if we implemented the removal of the fuel taxes federally, there would be more savings for Canadians and less of a downfall in how much the government would collect in revenues. This would be a win-win for everybody. Most importantly, it would be a win for those families that are struggling after 10 years of Liberal government. We need to get our economy up and running again. We need to make Canada what it used to be, a safe and affordable country, which after 10 years under Liberal governments it has not been. It has become a joke around the world. We need to get our resources to market. We need to get rid of the industrial carbon tax and remove Bill C-69 so we can get projects built in this country. We need to remove Bill C-48, the tanker ban, which does not let our product leave the west coast for Asian markets. We need to get rid of the clean fuel standard and every single one of the red tape policies that have stopped anything from getting built in this country. We need to get our country back on track so we can be sovereign, independent and an energy superpower once again. That is something only the Conservatives would do. [Expand] Hon. Steven MacKinnon (Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to my colleague's speech, and I would like to inform him that literally as we speak, the Prime Minister is announcing a historic break for Canadians, a summer break from excise taxes on diesel, jet fuel and gasoline. That follows the incredibly generous and necessary groceries and essentials benefit that was previously introduced. The government is putting in place solid measures to give Canadians a break and to make life more affordable. That follows on a number of other initiatives. I would just ask the member this: Does he not have anything good to say about the affordability measures put in place by the government? (1025) [Expand] Jasraj Hallan: Mr. Speaker, it seems as if the government House leader just got here, because I just addressed that. Once again, in typical Liberal fashion, the Liberals stole our idea, but they did not steal all of it. They took only a part of it. In fact they did not get rid of the clean fuel standard and did not get rid of the industrial carbon tax, and we are even calling for the GST to be removed, which would be a savings of 25¢ per litre. However, like typical Liberals, they did only half the work and half measures, but that is what they are known for. It does not really matter to the Liberals, because everything is politics for them. Right now they can make this announcement, but their clean fuel standard is still in place, which will make food more expensive. Canadians will not get a break at the grocery store whatsoever, and the break at the pump could have been a lot bigger if they had just implemented the Conservative plan fully. [Translation ]

[Expand] Mario Beaulieu (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if my colleague has accounted for the impact of these measures on the environment and the deficit. It has been estimated that this would increase the deficit by about $7 billion. [English ]

[Expand] Jasraj Hallan: Mr. Speaker, in fact the impact on the deficit would be a lot less than the revenues they are taking in. This would actually be a benefit, and at the end of the day, that benefit would go to Canadians. Canadians would see a direct impact at the pump, and it would directly help lower the cost of food. There are many different reasons we proposed the idea. It is too bad the Liberals once again did not implement the whole idea. They stole just a small portion of it. Once again, it is just politics to them. [Expand] Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I just hosted four town halls in my riding on the cost of living and affordability, and I brought this very idea that the Conservatives are proposing to the people at those town halls. Nearly unanimously, people there wanted the taxes removed temporarily to provide relief. However, it was also unanimous that the people at those town halls wanted the big oil and gas companies, which are posting record profits, to pick up the tab. Attendees agreed that the relief needs to happen, but it should not be at the expense of investments in roads, infrastructure and health. When will the Conservative and Liberal coalition for corporate welfare end? What is the threshold on corporate profits for big oil and gas before the Conservatives and Liberals will ask them to pay a little bit more when they win so they can take the pressure off everyday Canadians and pay their fair share for once? [Expand] Jasraj Hallan: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting, because I held a town hall in my riding as well last week. I overwhelmingly heard about how the Liberals have caused the cost of living crisis and about how my constituents would like federal fuel taxes removed as well, which would help them at the pump and, of course, at the grocery store. Where we differ, and where the Liberals have held Canada back from growth, is that if we want to properly fund our roadways and properly fund social services, we need a good and booming resource sector, which is something the Liberals have refused to do. In fact by keeping our resources in the ground, not only have we become more dependent but the world has also become worse off because it does not have good, clean, low-carbon energy from Canada. That is good-paying jobs and a good economy, which could help contribute to those roads and social services that my colleague is talking about. [Expand] Jacob Mantle (York—Durham, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I got up this morning and called home, as I do each day I am here in Ottawa away from my family, as I am sure many do. I asked, “What's the price of gasoline this morning? What's the price of diesel?” In my part of Ontario, just north of the GTA, it is ranging anywhere from about 165.9 to 175.9 for regular to around two dollars for diesel fuel. That is in Uxbridge, Port Perry, Cannington, Beaverton in Brock township and, of course, Sutton and Keswick in Georgina, which are all in my riding. Here we are. The reality is that we have diesel that is about two dollars and $1.75 gasoline in a country that sits on the fourth-largest reserve of conventional and unconventional oil and gas. It should be a time when Canada is benefiting from instability in the world; instead, we are suffering because of it. The war in Iran has certainly caused a spike in oil prices. It is one cause of what we are seeing at the pumps, but the other cause is, of course, self-inflicted. It is 10 years of policies from the government, whether it is old or new. Regardless of what they call it, the Liberals have been consistent, at least, in wanting to keep our resources in the ground. They would rather see Canadians starve, freeze and lose their jobs for some figment of an environmental ideology. The result is that we have two-dollar diesel and $1.75 gasoline. Of course, we also do not have enough infrastructure. We do not have refineries. We do not have enough pipelines. We do not have a pipeline from east to west, so we cannot even get our resources to our own people. That is why places in my part of the country and further east, instead of utilizing Canadian energy, are importing energy from places around the world that none of us would want to vacation in. For example, there is Saudi Arabia, where, of course, women have no rights, but we are funding its regime to the tune of billions of dollars by importing its oil rather than consuming our own, from Canadians who have hard-working jobs and high pay and from where our industries have high environmental standards. On top of these policy choices, what is worse in this whole situation, is that we clobber Canadians with taxes. We keep resources in the ground. We buy higher at world prices than it would cost to consume our own, and to add insult to injury, we clobber Canadians with taxes on top of that. Depending on where people live in this country, taxes on fuel will range from 40¢ to around 60¢ per litre. That is combined federal and provincial taxes. Colleagues need to bear with me as I am going to go through them. It might take a while, but here we go. There is a provincial excise tax; local consumer carbon taxes if people are in certain parts of British Columbia; transit taxes, again, if people are in certain parts of British Columbia; provincial sales taxes; the federal excise tax; the federal sales tax; the clean fuel regulations tax; and the industrial carbon tax. If colleagues were keeping track, that was quite a list, but one of the ironies of all these taxes is that the Liberals have, for months, called them imaginary. Every time I have asked a question on the clean fuel regulations or the industrial carbon tax, the government House leader, who just spoke, will get up to say that these are imaginary taxes. Well, today, let us take two that the Liberals have said are imaginary. The industrial carbon tax was and remains a flagship Liberal policy. In fact, if we go back to read the Liberals budget from the fall, it mentions the industrial carbon tax at least nine times and, in fact, has a promise to increase that industrial carbon tax in the future. Indeed, how imaginary is that? Next are the clean fuel regulations or the clean fuel standards tax. That is a real law. It is not imaginary. We can go on the justice laws website and look up the clean fuel regulations. In fact, the government has a dedicated web page for those regulations, so those are anything but imaginary. It is because of that uncertainty and because of the cost for families that we are today proposing, as the Conservative Party, as the official opposition, to remove all of the federal taxes on fuel. We have estimated that that would save Canadians about $20 every time they fill up at the pump and about $1,200 from now until the end of the year. (1030) We would pay for that by using some of the profits that the government will be reaping in with its higher revenue from higher oil prices, because of course we know that, as oil prices go up, provincial and federal governments take in more tax revenue. We have estimated that we could pay for our proposal with about $5 billion of the approximately $9 billion that will be taken in through higher oil revenues in this country. We would be using existing resources and not adding to the debt or deficit. We have suggested removing four federal taxes, proposing to suspend the federal excise tax until the end of the year, suspend the GST on gas and diesel until the end of the year and eliminate both of the clean fuel regulations, the clean fuel standards tax and the industrial carbon tax. In my view, all of these are necessary. Each one by itself is simply insufficient to provide any real relief to families. I know the Prime Minister, just a few moments ago, announced not even a half-measure, maybe a one-eighth measure, to remove only the federal excise tax and only until September. Let me put that into context. The plan we have proposed would save about 20¢ to 25¢ a litre. What the Prime Minister proposed today is just the federal excise tax, which is 10¢ per litre on regular gasoline and four cents per litre on diesel. That is less than half of what we have proposed and for about half of the time that we have proposed it for. I will comment just on the diesel as an example. Many companies, as we have seen reported in the media, are announcing fuel surcharges to deal with higher fuel prices. Taking four cents off a litre is not going to change corporate decision-making on that. Our proposal is 25¢ or about $1,200 a year. The Liberal proposal is 10¢ cents or four cents, just a few dollars, and not even until the end of the year. The irony now is that, after this week's events, the Liberals will have all the power in the world to take all the most ambitious measures they want. After the events of this week, last week and prior weeks, the Liberals will have a majority in the House of Commons, so they could implement more ambitious measures with ease. I think the media has been very disingenuous over the last evening and the last week. It was not the elections last night that gave the Liberals a majority. It was a handful of members of Parliament, including four previous Conservative members of Parliament, who made the decision to leave their party and join another. Despite my best efforts, I have been unable to locate any real issue of substance that would justify the member for Acadie—Annapolis 's crossing or the crossing of any of the other three prior Conservative members. Leaving a caucus might be understandable if there were an issue of principle for which the floor crosser stood, but there is none. There is no issue of conscience, no fundamental break of faith, just raw opportunism. Even statements by each of the members who made that decision reveal nothing really of substance. In the case of the member for Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, she simply made a reference to people telling her in the grocery store that they liked the Prime Minister. I certainly like you, Mr. Speaker, and other members in the House, but I would not cross the floor for you. In the case of the member for Markham—Unionville, he just made a vague reference to unity and decisive action. What decisive action? We have been here a year since the Prime Minister was elected. In the case of the member for Acadie—Annapolis, he simply said it was for a better path forward. I would invite him to explain what that path forward is, but I do not think he has the political courage to do so. In the case of the member for Edmonton Riverbend, he was simply and clearly smitten with the Prime Minister's speech in Davos. None of those statements reflect any real issues of substance, and that is the problem. That is what Canadians smell. Canadians are not dupes. They smell the rank hypocrisy of the members of our caucus who left, the former members of the Conservative Party. The reason people take an action matters. The reason people do something, the justification they have or, in the case of these members, when they do not have justification, matters. That is why Canadians are so upset with these floor crossings, because there is no substance behind them. (1035) [Translation ]

[Expand] Carlos Leitão (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us come back to the Conservative Party motion because that is what we are here to debate. As usual, the motion contains several points. In fact, we agree with some of them, as our Prime Minister has said. No matter what the issue is, Conservatives always bring up the industrial carbon tax, as if getting rid of it were some kind of magic cure. If we get rid of it, everything will be fine afterward. How can the member justify calling for the cancellation of the industrial carbon tax again when it has been shown that this tax currently has no impact on the price of fuel? (1040) [English ]

[Expand] Jacob Mantle: Mr. Speaker, it is not magic; it is just mathematics. When taxes are removed, it lowers the price of things in this country. This is why our plans, all four of them, were estimated to lower the price of gasoline by about 25¢. It is not magic. The Liberals just need add up the numbers and remove the taxes to get a better outcome for Canadians. I do not disagree with some of the things they have done, but they need to do more. They need to do them all. I ask them to not take a half-measure when they can clearly go the whole way and give full relief. [Translation ]

[Expand] Mario Beaulieu (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to expand a bit on what my colleague said. The industrial carbon tax has no impact on prices at the pump. Ultimately, this is a gift in disguise to the oil companies, a gift disguised as support for the public, but it will not have any effect. It will just help the oil companies, which are already making billions of dollars in profits. [English ]

[Expand] Jacob Mantle: Mr. Speaker, I guess we simply have a disagreement on this. I think it is common sense that if we tax businesses in the production of their goods or services, they will pass that cost on to the consumer who buys their goods or services. If a farmer has to pay an additional cost to buy fertilizer or to buy a piece of equipment, that will find its way into the products we buy at the grocery store. The industrial carbon tax raises the cost of food and fuel, and that cost is paid by consumers. It is as simple as that. [Expand] Michael Guglielmin (Vaughan—Woodbridge, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my colleague laid out some very common-sense principles. Inputs increase pricing, and if we control the inputs, we can give people relief. More importantly, he spent a part of his speech talking about principle and why in the House we must adhere to our principles. I was wondering if the member could take this opportunity to elaborate on that. [Expand] Jacob Mantle: Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Vaughan—Woodbridge was in the manufacturing industry himself, and he knows a thing or two about keeping a budget and keeping costs. He also knows a thing or two about principle. I have come to know him, and he is a man of principle, unlike some of the others who were formerly in our caucus. On this side of the House, our principle is about providing relief to Canadians. That is what this opposition motion is about, and we estimate that the suite of measures would reduce the price of fuel taxes by about 25%, which would save families $1,200 a year. That is a principle that I hope all members of the House will support. [Expand] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): Before I go to questions and comments, I am going to caution the member to be judicious in the comments he makes. We do not want to impugn the motives of any member of the House. We have time for a quick question from the member for Courtenay—Alberni. [Expand] Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada highlighted yesterday that inequality is skyrocketing even more, with the bottom 40% only holding 3% of the wealth and the top 20% holding two-thirds of the wealth. This is at a time when the big banks have posted $70 billion in profits. For the top big five oil companies, it is almost $25 billion. The top five grocery stores have gone from $2.4 billion in profits to $6.3 billion. At what point, or at what level, would there be a threshold between the Conservatives and Liberals where they will charge an excess profit tax on the big corporations or a wealth tax on individuals so they are moving forward with tackling inequality in this country? This measure alone would not do that. It would actually push the deficits, and the investments in infrastructure and health that would help those people, down the road. [Expand] Jacob Mantle: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his concern for those who can least afford government taxes. He will know, and I know he will agree, that things such as the industrial carbon tax and the clean fuel regulation are sometimes the most pernicious of taxes because they put the burden on people who can least afford to pay more. Those are the lower-income people who have no choice but to pay more to go to work to buy groceries, so they are harmed the most by some of these taxes. This is in part why our proposal says to give them some relief. Let us give the Canadians who need it the most some relief. [Translation ]

[Expand] Anthony Housefather (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this important debate. I will be sharing my time with the member for Cumberland—Colchester. (1045) [English ]

Our government knows how difficult it is for some Canadians to cover their day-to-day costs. Making life more affordable has always been a core priority of this government. More pressingly, we know that a significant pressure on household budgets is the cost of fuel. Recent events in the Middle East, including the partial blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, have led to a global spike in oil prices, and Canadian families are feeling the impacts. That is why I am pleased to be able to say that today the Prime Minister announced further action to help Canadians manage these challenges. As the Prime Minister made clear, Canada's new government will use the improvement in the fiscal outlook associated with higher oil prices to provide targeted relief to households and businesses. Specifically, we are reducing pressure on fuel prices at the pump by suspending the application of the federal fuel excise tax on gasoline and diesel, effective next week until Labour Day, September 7, 2026, delivering over $2.3 billion in relief to Canadians at a time when they need it the most. This temporary suspension of excise taxes for gasoline and diesel is expected to save Canadians up to an estimated $5.75 on regular gasoline and up to $2.30 on diesel when filling up a typical 50-litre tank of fuel. This is a serious moment in our nation's history, and it deserves serious leadership and consideration. The announcement made earlier today by the Prime Minister reflects that. The Conservative motion today, on the other hand, is, unfortunately, anything but serious. Canadians expect and deserve more than “back of the napkin” math. Let us look at some of the issues with the Conservative motion. Oil prices, as we know, are highly volatile and highly unpredictable. We know that recent events have led to a global spike in prices, but we also know that it is difficult to forecast what will happen six, eight or 12 months down the road. Conservatives are arguing that the current price per barrel will generate an additional $9 billion to $10 billion in government revenues. This assumption is based on the price per barrel staying the same between now and the new year. The Conservative plan is based on forecasts that are optimistic at best. Moreover, the Conservatives are allowing their ambivalence toward environmental action to overshadow a reasonable approach to the environment and the economy. They know that the clean fuel regulations do not add to the price Canadians pay at the pump. They know that an industrial carbon price makes us more competitive in a lower-emissions global economy. They are intentionally conflating these issues instead of focusing on what matters to Canadians. This measure builds on one of the very first actions we took as a government, which also lowered costs at the pump. One of the first things we did was to eliminate the federal consumer fuel charge, effective April 1, 2025. Our government removed the consumer carbon price on gasoline, diesel and home-heating fuels while ensuring that Canadians received the final rebate during the transition. At the same time, we preserved carbon pricing for large industrial emitters, focusing emissions reductions where they are the most effective, while easing cost pressures on households and maintaining a strong, competitive economy. I can assure members that we have been working tirelessly to address cost of living challenges experienced by too many households across this country, and we are absolutely delivering for Canadians. We have presented ambitious plans to reposition Canada for a far better future, but of course, this will take some time. We know that Canadians need immediate relief, and we are delivering. Let me take a moment to highlight some of our recent actions to address housing affordability in Canada. Put simply, we need to build more homes. We recently introduced Bill C-26, which will help unlock new housing across Canada. Bill C-26 will deliver a federal investment of $1.7 billion to provinces and territories so they can implement measures to boost the housing supply. These funds can help reduce development fees or levies on new home construction. They can also make incremental investments in existing provincial and territorial programs that are dedicated to building more homes. We are also enabling more homebuilding across the country with investments in infrastructure that Canadians rely on every day. Earlier this month, the Prime Minister officially launched the build communities strong fund, a $51-billion investment to help build essential infrastructure projects, including hospitals, universities, roads and bridges, and water and transit systems. Investment in housing-enabling infrastructure under this program will help accelerate the right housing-related infrastructure needed to support housing growth. To access funds for infrastructure related to housing and post-secondary education, provinces will also need to show a commitment to reducing development charges where those charges pose a significant barrier to new construction. Provinces and territories will also need to commit to not levying other taxes that hinder housing supply to encourage housing development. We have also eliminated the goods and services tax for first-time buyers on homes valued up to $1 million, and we reduced the GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes between $1 million and $1.5 million. We will build faster and smarter thanks to the launch of Build Canada Homes, a new federal agency that will drive investment and public-private co-operation. In addition to housing, we are working to provide Canadians with relief from the financial squeeze of everyday expenses. We all know that one of the areas that stresses Canadians the most is the cost of groceries. Food costs have gone up far too quickly in this country. Our government's new Canada groceries and essentials benefit will help more than 12 million low- and modest-income Canadians afford day-to-day necessities. We have also cut taxes for the middle class. Since July 1, 2025, Canadians have been paying less tax after the government announced lowering of the first marginal personal income tax rate from 15% to 14%. This change will ensure that nearly 22 million Canadians benefit from tax relief of up to $420 per person, saving two-income families up to $840 a year. A more affordable Canada also means a more competitive Canada. As members can see, we are delivering. At a time when many Canadians are feeling the pressure of rising costs, our government remains focused on what matters the most: supporting people and easing financial strains wherever we can. We can take practical, responsible and pragmatic actions to help families afford the essentials, strengthen household financial security and ensure that economic growth works for everyone. Every decision we take should be guided by a simple principle: to stand with Canadians, protect their well-being and help build a more stable and resilient future for communities across the country. With the results of the by-elections last night, we have a choice. We can all work together across party lines to continue to make things better for Canadians, or we can hear diatribes directed against former colleagues, personal attacks against other members of Parliament, and not work together. (1050) [Translation ]

As Canadians and as elected officials from all political parties, we have the opportunity to continue working together in committee and in the House. I truly hope that, as parliamentarians who represent our communities and who are concerned about affordability, we will be able to take a practical look at what we can do together. [English ]

I thank the House very much for giving me the time, and I look forward to the questions from my colleagues. [Expand] Ned Kuruc (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I find it concerning that the member called our motion “unserious” when clearly it is serious enough that the Prime Minister just had a press conference on it. What I find unserious is that he took his time and, instead of talking about gas taxes and how to save Canadians money at the pumps, he just talked about housing most of the time. Does he believe that Canadians should get relief at the pumps, yes or no? [Expand] Anthony Housefather: Mr. Speaker, given that the first four minutes of my speech dealt with fuel prices, I would say of course, which is why we are removing the excise tax. The excise tax has been in place since the 1990s, and we are taking the proactive step based on the current worldwide oil prices to cut that. The excise tax is 10¢ per litre for regular people buying standard gasoline. This will no longer be the case from next week until Labour Day. Of course we are sensitive to the issue. What I was talking about was all of the different things in the Conservative motion that were not things that should be done. [Translation ]

[Expand] Mario Beaulieu (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the fact that the Conservative measures do not take Quebec's system into account. Quebec has its own carbon tax system, namely the carbon market. That means that Quebec ended up funding measures for the other provinces. What does my colleague think about respecting Quebec's jurisdictions and providing compensation when Quebec's jurisdictions are infringed upon? One example of that is the vote-buying cheques that were sent to all of the provinces except British Columbia and Quebec to provide a carbon tax refund after the tax had already been abolished. Should British Columbia and Quebec not be compensated for that? (1055) [Expand] Anthony Housefather: Mr. Speaker, I will start by answering the question that was asked at the beginning of my colleague's speech. Yes, I believe that some proposals in the Conservative motion are unrealistic. These proposals do not consider the environment and its importance. They also do not take into account the fact that the costs they are trying to eliminate have nothing to do with the price at the pump, as my hon. colleague said earlier. [English ]

[Expand] Hon. Buckley Belanger (Secretary of State (Rural Development), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague for his very thoughtful and insightful presentation on the motion before us. The global economy has been grappling with higher gas prices resulting from ongoing conflicts in the Middle East and the partial closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Could you elaborate on how it impacts gas prices in Canada? [Expand] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): Again, I remind members to address their comments through the Chair. The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor. [Expand] Anthony Housefather: Mr. Speaker, as my friend knows, global gas prices are driven by global supply and demand. When some of the leading producers in the world are unable to ship oil to markets, the price goes up. When we have instability, the price goes up. When the President of the United States makes certain announcements, the price goes up. Global oil prices are completely unstable, which has led to an increase as a result of the conflict and the inability to deliver oil to market from certain of the most important producing regions in the world. As such, prices in Canada and around the world have gone up. What we need to do is give temporary relief, as we have done. Today, the Prime Minister announced that the excise tax is being cut until Labour Day. [Expand] Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, basically, right now oil prices are very high, and that means the government is bringing in tons and tons of money. In light of that, young people are seeing this and asking why the government will not do the full recommendation from the Conservative Party, because it can certainly afford to do that and not make it even more difficult for young people who are facing these challenges as constituents of Canada. [Expand] Anthony Housefather: Mr. Speaker, one of the things the Conservatives are assuming in their motion is that the cost of oil will remain the same for the rest of the year, but the price of oil fluctuates constantly. The $9 billion to $10 billion that the Conservatives claim is going to be collected by the government depends on oil prices not falling over the next nine months. [Expand] Alana Hirtle (Cumberland—Colchester, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to today's debate, particularly as we navigate a period of geopolitical volatility and significant change. Disruptions to global energy infrastructure caused by ongoing military conflicts in the Middle East are driving higher fuel costs, creating economic uncertainty for families in Canada and across the world. While governments cannot control global events, I can assure my hon. colleagues that Canada is doing what it takes to support Canadians facing the financial effects of this and other crises, not only because we know it is the right thing to do, but because we want more Canadians to be able to support their families and contribute to our country's long-term national prosperity. As I just mentioned, higher fuel prices driven by global conflicts are adding stress to household budgets in Canada and across the globe. That is why today we are taking further action to help Canadians manage these challenges, as was just announced by the Prime Minister. Canada's new government will use the improvement in the fiscal outlook associated with higher oil prices to provide targeted relief to households and businesses. Specifically, we are reducing pressure on fuel prices at the pump by suspending the application of the federal fuel excise tax on gasoline and diesel, effective next Monday, April 20, 2026, until September 7, 2026, delivering over $2.2 billion in relief. This temporary suspension of excise taxes for gasoline and diesel is expected to save Canadians up to an estimated $5.75 on regular gasoline and up to $2.30 on diesel when filling up a typical 50-litre tank of fuel. Now folks will have no reason not to come visit my beautiful home province of Nova Scotia this summer. Today's announcement is just the latest measure our government has announced to help Canadians manage affordability concerns and build a stronger future for everyone. Since taking office, our government has taken considerable, concrete and targeted steps to put more money in Canadians' pockets. My hon. colleagues will recall that one of the first things the Prime Minister did last year was to cancel the consumer fuel charge, directly allowing Canadians to save money from the price they were paying at the pump. Our government also removed the requirement for provinces and territories to have a consumer-facing carbon price as of April 1, 2025, at that time. Our middle-class tax cut, which lowered the first marginal personal income tax rate from 15% to 14% since July 1, 2025, will save two-income families up to $840 in 2026. Going forward, it is expected to deliver over $27 billion in tax savings to Canadians over the next five years. What is more, the bulk of tax relief will go to those with incomes in the two lowest tax brackets, that is, those with taxable income under $117,045 in 2026, including nearly half to those in the first bracket, $58,523 and below in 2026. This means the relief is effectively targeted at those Canadians who need help most. By eliminating the GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes at or under $1 million and reducing it for first-time homebuyers on new homes between $1 million and $1.5 million, our government is also saving first-time homebuyers up to $50,000, making the goal of home ownership a reality for more Canadians, especially young Canadians. Moreover, we tabled budget 2025, “Canada Strong”, which includes numerous affordability supports for people across the country. For example, we made the national school food program permanent, a program that helps 400,000 more children each year receive healthy meals every day, while saving families with two children $800 per year on groceries. By making it permanent, we will work with provinces, territories and indigenous partners to expand the program into more schools across Canada. (1100) The budget also proposes to start automatically delivering federal benefits to low-income Canadians. That includes the GST credit and the Canada child benefit. We will continue protecting child care, dental care and pharmacare to maintain these essential services so many Canadians depend on. Moreover, to support Canadians with the cost of groceries and everyday essentials, which have stretched many Canadians' wallets thin, the government has also announced the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit, which will provide significant support for more than 12 million Canadians. When it becomes available this spring, the CGEB will replace the existing GST credit, but it will also be more generous. First, we are providing a one-time top-up payment to be paid as early as possible this spring, equal to a 50% increase in the annual 2025-26 value of the GST credit. Second, we will increase the benefit by 25% for five years, starting in July 2026. Combined, this means that a family of four will receive up to $1,890 this year and about $1,400 a year for the next four years, and a single person will receive up to $950 this year and about $700 a year for the next four years. That is not all. Let us listen to this. We also recently took action to put a cap on NSF, non-sufficient funds, fees to make banking fairer and more affordable for Canadians. As of March 2026, consumers cannot be charged more than $10 in NSF fees when they do not have enough money in their personal deposit account to cover a payment. Also, consumers will not be charged an NSF fee more than once in a period of two business days for the same personal deposit account, and consumers will not be charged NSF fees on a personal deposit account when the amount of their overdraft in the account is less than $10. To support Canadians amid ongoing global energy market disruptions, we are delivering timely, meaningful and tangible relief through a comprehensive set of actions that will put more money in Canadians' pockets. Canadians need relief. That is clear as day. This government is absolutely delivering for them, as well as for generations of Canadians to come. I am thankful for the opportunity to make my case. (1105) [Expand] Philip Lawrence (Northumberland—Clarke, CPC): Mr. Speaker, with respect to the so-called benefits, how could the hon. member possibly square this with our current economic situation? Our unemployment rate is nearly double that of the United States. We just went through one of the worst quarters, at -0.6%. We are one quarter away from a recession, and inflation is on the rise. If the Liberals are so great, why are Canadians suffering so much? [Expand] Alana Hirtle: Mr. Speaker, our government is keenly aware of the situation that everyday Canadians find themselves in, and that is why, whether it is through the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, the elimination of carbon pricing for consumers, increased support for first-time homebuyers or measures to increase housing supply through Build Canada Homes, our government continues to work for Canadians to improve affordability. [Expand] Hon. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, it is my opinion that when this government seeks to bring in new initiatives, there are always initiatives that are geared toward those who need them the most, and in particular those who need those supports in times of crisis like this. I am wondering if the member can elaborate on what she thinks this government is doing to fulfill that. [Expand] Alana Hirtle: Mr. Speaker, our government is keenly aware of and engaged in what Canadians are dealing with these days. I, myself, have not been immune to being in a poor financial situation and having to rob Peter to pay Paul, as they say. I am keenly aware that our government is working to benefit all of our constituents and all of Canada by taking concrete steps to support Canadians through these challenges as we position them for long-term success by building the strongest economy in the G7. [Translation ]

[Expand] Mario Beaulieu (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to know what my colleague thinks about the fact that there are a number of Conservative measures that would penalize Quebec because they would lower taxes even though Quebec has its own system, which includes the carbon market. Does my colleague not think that, every time such measures are taken, some thought should be given to finding a way to compensate Quebec and respect its areas of jurisdiction? [Expand] Alana Hirtle: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I am taking French lessons right now, but I will answer the question in English. [English ]

I would encourage the Conservatives to join us in our work to grow our energy exports, protect Canadian workers and improve our competitiveness on the global market. [Expand] Larry Brock (Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this is another illusion that the Prime Minister cares about affordability. For four months, just over four months, he is going to drop taxes by 10¢ on gas and four cents per litre on diesel. Will the member support a common-sense solution that delivers real, tangible results to Canadians and support our motion to provide an extra 25¢ of relief for the rest of 2026? Will she do that? (1110) [Expand] Alana Hirtle: Mr. Speaker, I would say that the majority of Canadians will be travelling this summer, as it will be the tourist season, and this will be a significant savings for those individuals coming home to visit their friends and relatives this year. [Translation ]

[Expand] Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette—Manawan, BQ): I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Mirabel, who is also often my friend. As we know, gas prices have skyrocketed since the start of Donald Trump's and Israel's war against Iran. The military operation, which began on February 28, led Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz, that handles 20% of global oil. The U.S. forces had anticipated this and warned that it would happen, and it did. Today, we are dealing with the Conservative motion, and the Prime Minister just announced that he is suspending the excise tax until Labour Day, which will cost about $2.5 billion. This is a blanket measure, but a targeted one might have been a better idea. In today's motion, the Conservatives are proposing a measure with a total annual cost of $13 billion, which would increase the deficit by 20%. Given the current state of public finances, more targeted measures should have been proposed, ones that cost less and have the most impact on the cost of living. Furthermore, the calculations in the motion are ridiculous. For example, the motion estimates that eliminating fuel standards would save seven cents per litre. However, that is completely untrue, because with today's high oil prices, biofuels now cost about the same as fossil fuels, so there are no extra savings to be made on that front. This idea that we would save seven cents per litre is far-fetched. I would also like to point out that Quebec has its own standards. Basically, what they are proposing here is that, since the price of oil and gas is rising, we should consume more of it. What a brilliant idea. In their motion, the Conservatives also propose eliminating the industrial carbon tax. However, as they themselves indirectly acknowledge in their motion, this measure would not even result in a savings of 1¢ per litre. It is nothing more than a gift to the oil companies. Oil companies have production costs, and the price, which is determined globally, is rising. Consequently, oil companies are making more profit, and if we were to eliminate the industrial carbon tax for oil companies, they would receive yet another windfall that would fill the gap and remove any incentive to pollute less. As I said, the price of crude oil depends on global market prices. I would caution the government and the Conservatives when it comes to the excise tax. Many experts, including Luc Godbout, believe that this is not the right course of action, even temporarily. A few months ago, Mr. Godbout said that we need to resist the temptation to lower the gas tax for either budget-balancing or environmental reasons. As members know, it will be hard to reinstate this tax later because Canadians will have to absorb the increase. As I said, the government needs to take targeted measures, which are more effective. However, it would seem that both sides of the House would prefer to take broad measures. Is it wise to allow as much pollution as there is in Donald Trump's America, in other words, unlimited pollution? As members know, President Trump announced the repeal of the vehicle efficiency standard that has steadily increased vehicle range per gallon, as they say south of the border. In Canada, we refer to the number of litres per kilometre. I would remind members that this standard was introduced well before the government's commitment to address climate change. The corporate average fuel economy program, or CAFE, was adopted in 1975 to make the United States less dependent on foreign oil. At the time, vehicles averaged only 13 miles per gallon. That is why it was introduced. Abolishing such a standard encourages manufacturers to sell larger, more polluting vehicles, since selling those vehicles is more lucrative. It also makes industry and consumers more vulnerable to price shocks and oil shocks. In the long run, consumers are the ones who lose out, because Donald Trump's reasoning, like that of the Conservatives today, neglects the savings that come from energy efficiency, in addition to completely ignoring the costs related to health and the environment. A few weeks ago, during our last sitting week, the Conservatives proposed removing standards and incentives for the electrification of transportation. The party is against high-speed rail. We are in favour, but with reservations about how the expropriation will be done, considering the safeguards that were removed in Bill C‑15. Through all of this, the Conservatives are trying to keep us completely dependent on oil by opposing any other solution. That is their response to the current skyrocketing prices. It is something to think about. (1115) American economist Paul Krugman wrote a blog post on this issue today. He points out that soaring oil and gas prices, combined with the threat of shortages, highlights the risks of relying on fossil fuels. He demonstrates that economies that are more reliant on oil and gas have been more impacted by the soaring prices than those that use other sources. I would therefore like to repeat my question: Is the solution to remain reliant on fossil fuels? Paradoxically, Krugman explains that while Trump cancelled the previous administration's plan to develop more renewable energy, his adventurism in Iran has sparked a global rush to invest in solar power, wind power and batteries. Where will the world procure most of the renewable energy equipment it seeks? From China. As we know, China is the workshop of the world. Krugman notes that China's manufacturing sector is larger than those of the United States, Japan, Germany and South Korea combined. While China is strong in many industries, it is utterly dominant in electrotechnology, the cluster of solar panel, wind turbine, battery and electric vehicle industries at the heart of the renewable energy revolution. Krugman cites the Wall Street Journal, which notes that China's green industrial complex reigns supreme. China accounts for more than 80% of global production in all these sectors, with the exception of wind turbines, where China's share is 60%, with Europe retaining a significant role. China uses most of its production within its own economy. It is designed not only for export, but to reduce its dependence on oil and gas. Krugman notes that under President Joe Biden, the United States took much needed steps to develop their own electrotech sectors, notably batteries and electric vehicles. It sought to accelerate the growth of renewable energy in general. However, the Trump administration has cancelled all of Biden's renewable energy programs and is also actively trying to block private commercial investments in this sector. Is that what needs to happen in Canada? That is my question. Krugman says that until America frees itself from Trump's obsession with fossil fuels, if it ever does, China's lead in renewable energy production will likely be insurmountable. He concludes that it is nonetheless unfortunate to see the United States self-destruct and yield the most important industry of the future to China. In doing so, the United States is becoming impoverished, falling behind technologically and losing influence in a world rushing toward the energy revolution. In the end, the United States is not simply burning fossil fuels, but also destroying its future. That seems to be what is being proposed here and it also seems to correspond to the measures the government is taking in the House. When the government says it wants to be an energy superpower, it is talking about oil and gas. It is forging blindly ahead. Oil is a non‑renewable resource, and climate change is real, whether we like it or not. The takeaway from the current crisis is that we urgently need to reduce our dependence on oil and aim for more stable and more sustainable economic development. Europe is choosing that path. We can do the same. As Krugman pointed out, however, the problem is that China is manufacturing everything at the moment. However, we could play a role here. Quebec has everything it takes to do so because our strength lies in the new clean economy. We do not have any oil, but we have renewable energy. We have everything it takes to be one of the key links in the new supply chain for states that are working to reduce their dependence on oil and gas. That is where our future lies. We need to support the development of a whole new sector, that of processing the resources that we have already. We need to embrace this shift toward reducing our dependence on oil and gas so that we can compete with China, which already has a huge advantage. However, that is not the choice that Ottawa has made so far. That is not what today's motion is proposing. These are missed opportunities for Quebec. The current global context is giving us the opportunity to make the most of Quebec's strengths, to reconnect with our true nature and to act as a bridge between North America and Europe. However, neither the official opposition party nor the current government are promoting that approach. (1120) [Expand] Carlos Leitão (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is so interesting that my esteemed colleague quoted Paul Krugman. I am a big fan of his, too. My colleague and I have a number of things in common, and that is just one of them. I would like my colleague to tell us more about how the Conservatives seem fixated on clean fuel regulations. Specifically, they want to get rid of those regulations. Does my colleague understand why that is? I do not understand it. How does he interpret our colleagues' fixation? [Expand] Gabriel Ste-Marie: Mr. Speaker, as economists, I am sure we have a number of passions and topics of conversation in common. First, Quebec has its own standards, which means that, if Ottawa were to change its standard, nothing would change in Quebec. Second, the Conservatives have made up this wacky number, seven cents per litre, based on an outdated analysis from when oil prices were lower. Now they are putting this out there at a time when oil prices are rising and are equivalent to biofuel prices. Getting rid of that standard would be nothing more than a gift to oil companies, just like getting rid of the industrial carbon tax would boost their bottom line without bringing down the price at the pump. What this really is is lobbying in the interest of the oil industry. [Expand] Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my Bloc Québécois colleague, who gave an excellent speech, in my view. We have a very good MP representing the riding of Joliette—Manawan, and we need more contributions from members like him. There is a lot of drama on the Conservative side. It almost seems as though they are blaming the government for the rise in gas prices, when in reality, if we look at the figures and data, the oil companies' operating costs did not go up when the price of a barrel of oil went up. The oil companies simply increased their profits. Rather than cutting taxes, are there any other measures that could target oil companies directly? [Expand] Gabriel Ste-Marie: Mr. Speaker, we are also dealing with inflation, where people are paying more for everything. There is that element. Also, in the trucking industry, for example, trucks cannot be converted to a different technology overnight. They must continue to be filled with diesel, which is more expensive. Would a measure targeting that aspect have been more effective and less costly? I would note that what is being proposed today will cost over $13 billion per year. That is a lot of money, and it will all be added to the deficit. Is that really the most effective solution? We need to work on more targeted measures. The inflation caused by the war started by Donald Trump and his ally Israel is clearly having an impact, but is the solution to adopt measures like this one that will cost a fortune? What it boils down to is, should the deficit be increased? I do not believe it should. We clearly need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and maybe find a better way to collect taxes from the oil companies, which are primarily foreign-owned. For every dollar of profit they earn, 75¢ leaves Canada. This merits investigation. [English ]

[Expand] Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is a known fact that the world is using more oil now and will be for the next 40 years. We have the most efficient, environmentally appropriate means of getting oil out of the ground. We have that ability and that resource. However, what I am hearing from people in this House is that they would rather get it from other countries that are not as conscientious as we are about our environment. I know that Quebec itself has a great deal of oil under the ground, but it is choosing not to do that right now, not until it becomes its own nation, I understand. Why do the government and these individuals not understand the reality that our government is making incredible money on that oil price right now and it will not— (1125) [Translation ]

[Expand] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): I have to give the hon. member a little time to reply. The hon. member for Joliette—Manawan has 30 seconds to respond. [Expand] Gabriel Ste-Marie: Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to say, but 30 seconds is not enough time to get through it all. The current crisis revolves around an oil shortage and rising costs. The answer is not to get even more oil out of the ground, but to reduce our reliance on it. If the member would stop talking long enough to let me answer in the few seconds I have left, I would tell her that the solution is not to rely even more on oil and suffer through the kinds of price spikes we are seeing now. The solution is to make oil a thing of the past. Economist Paul Krugman says that countries that are less oil-dependent are less affected. [Expand] Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Joliette—Manawan for giving an excellent and very informative speech, as usual. His answers to the questions were equally insightful. We are here to discuss gas prices, because the situation today is truly troubling, distressing and worrisome for families. One of the reasons we are discussing this issue today, if not the only reason, is President Trump's Iran excursion, to put it politely, which has made the Strait of Hormuz impassable today. Roughly one-fifth of the world's oil and gas transits through the strait and supplies many of our trading partners. This troubling situation is affecting the price of a barrel of oil and has had a knock-on effect on the price at the pump, which recently jumped by $2. We understand why people at home are worried, especially people who have to fill up their cars. I also recently looked at some data from Statistics Canada on the price of a litre of unleaded gas at a self-service gas station in the Montreal census metropolitan area for the past 20 years, and I adjusted the data to real 2025 dollars. What is surprising is that, in the long term, the price of gas goes up very little on average. Rising gas prices are not the problem. What we are seeing is that the price of gas goes up and down a lot. We know that households are always vulnerable to price increases and price decreases and that they cannot predict those prices and budget for them, which is what worries me. This happened shortly after the pandemic, when gas prices were almost $2 a litre in today's dollars. The government did not suspend the excise tax on gasoline at the time, mainly because there were no Conservatives ready to cross the floor. There was no need to attract them. It was not that important to the government. That is where we are today. We have a problem with fluctuating gas prices. I was at committee yesterday with the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin. We heard from experts who said that, over the years, household incomes and real purchasing power have increased for some but not all households. Roughly 75% or 80% of the wealthiest, or least poor, Canadians have seen their incomes rise, while nearly 20% of people in Quebec and Canada have seen their incomes stagnate. Those 20% are the most vulnerable. There is a double phenomenon happening here. First, we have the poorest people, whose incomes are stagnating, who are faced with significant fluctuations in gas prices but still have to fill up their tanks. Then we have the 80% of people whose incomes have increased, while on average and over the long term, gas prices have remained fairly stable overall. What is happening with these people, the ones who can cope with these fluctuations? We are in a situation where the number of vehicles is increasing faster than the population and where vehicles' size and fuel consumption have almost doubled over the past 20 or 25 years. Some people with incomes are polluting more and more, yet today, the government is proposing to gift them with a measure made all the worse by what the official opposition is proposing. For people who are less well off, filling up at the gas station puts a strain on their budget. Obviously, one plus one equals two. As my colleague from Joliette—Manawan has said, the Conservative Party cannot complain endlessly about the deficit, say that the government cannot balance its budget, and call for a return to a balanced budget while also proposing such measures. Just discussing the substance of the motion undermines their own credibility. Today, the government proposed a temporary measure to suspend the excise tax on gas. Will that help the poorest people, who are grappling with higher gas prices? Perhaps. Is this the best measure? Is it sufficiently targeted? Probably not. Is it going to be a very costly way of redistributing a small amount of money to the poorest households? We will have to wait and see. We will also have to see whether oil companies decide to pass on the tax cut to consumers. When people are forced to use their cars to get to work because they do not have access to public transit and cannot afford small electric vehicles, they are extremely vulnerable in the short term. Their demand for gas is fixed, and they are at the oil companies' mercy. There is nothing in the proposals from either side that would protect these people. It seems like the gas stations were the ones getting a handout today. (1130) The Conservative motion veers back into populism and tries to make people believe that gas prices can be drastically lowered with the snap of a finger. I would urge the Conservatives to be cautious, because we are in a political environment where the Liberal government has turned into a Conservative government. Even the most conservative Conservatives are crossing the floor. They used to table this type of motion to put on a political show, but now, each time they rise to table a motion like this, the government imitates them. I do not want anyone listening this morning to imagine that the Prime Minister was concerned about households' purchasing power two days ago. He is concerned about getting Conservative members over to his side. Every time he plays this game, every time the government does something the Conservatives have been calling for, people cross the floor. That is why I urge the Conservatives to be cautious, because they are pushing the Liberal government to become increasingly conservative at their own expense. As I said, this is populist. For months, the Conservatives have been saying that the industrial carbon tax should be eliminated to lower the price at the pump. The governor of the central bank, Mr. Macklem, actually told the committee that this tax mainly applies to imported products and would not have any impact on inflation. He practically had to pound his fist on the table in the middle of the committee meeting to get the message through to the Conservatives that if he wanted to lower the cost of living for households, he would look elsewhere. It is important to note that. What should be done? Obviously, the focus should be on the households that are the most vulnerable to these fluctuations. That is how a long-term solution will be found. If the government takes temporary measures every time the price of gas fluctuates, instead of adopting long-term measures for the energy transition, the long term will become a long sequence of short-term measures that do not solve the underlying problems, and the most vulnerable households will grow even more vulnerable with every crisis. This is exactly what we are seeing today: a predominance of short‑term policies in Parliament for political gain, though it is true that some households will benefit in this case. I want to say one thing. The government previously announced a deficit of $80 billion. A few weeks ago, it added a vote‑buying cheque, which it called the grocery rebate, that represents a total of $4 billion to $5 billion. The measure announced today adds $2.5 billion in new spending. No one has any idea how much public money is being spent anymore. Meanwhile, the real purchasing power of households is also being affected by access to health care and access to education services. We need to increase productivity. We need to support the provinces' ability to provide these services and offer preschool, primary, secondary and university education. The provinces are being squeezed. Funds have been allocated for public transit. However, as my colleague, the transport critic, said several times, the money is stuck in Ottawa. That is part of the long-term solution. We need infrastructure. It is clear from the state of our streets that we have an infrastructure problem. The money needs to be transferred to the provinces. What is the point of lowering the price of gas if cars blow a tire every time people drive down a public road? There is a cost associated with that, which affects households. I would like to touch on one last thing related to rising gas prices, and that is productivity. Oil and gas are production inputs, and when a shock like the one we are currently experiencing occurs, it has a negative impact on productivity. The Prime Minister and the government keep telling us that we need to increase our productivity. One of the best ways to do that is to stop being so vulnerable to fluctuating oil prices. When oil prices go up, production costs more, we produce less per worker and we are less able to increase wages. That harms investment. The government is in the oil business. Our oil and gas supply is secure. The oil and gas we use is almost exclusively North American. We cannot have a government that talks about productivity and yet continues to make our businesses more vulnerable to fluctuating oil prices. I think it is high time that this Parliament started thinking about the long term. I was elected nearly five years ago, and I have yet to see that happen. (1135) [Expand] Carlos Leitão (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are on a roll. We have had two or three economists speak in a row. We are going to end up taking over the House of Commons. My question for my esteemed colleague and fellow committee member concerns the need for government support to be well targeted. Does he believe that the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, which builds on the GST tax credit, provides targeted assistance to those who truly need it? [Expand] Jean-Denis Garon: Mr. Speaker, I am quite fond of the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin. It is a pleasure to work with him. The answer is yes. That is why we voted in favour of that benefit and that is why we welcomed that cheque. That is exactly what we were saying. This cheque, which is the former GST rebate, takes into account household composition, family allowances and income. It is targeted, and it is the kind of measure that we want because we can redistribute more money while spending less. What surprises me is that, just a few weeks ago, the government acknowledged that this was the right approach, but today, on this Conservative opposition day, it has decided that implementing targeted measures is no longer the way to go. I find this inconsistency hard to understand. I am even wondering why the government did not decide to tell us this morning that it might need to rethink the format of this cheque in order to be consistent. Saying one thing three weeks ago and saying something else today is no way to be consistent in formulating public policy. [English ]

[Expand] Chris Warkentin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With regard to Standing Order 43(2)(a), the Conservative slots will now all be split in half. [Expand] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): I thank the member for his intervention. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay. [Expand] Helena Konanz (Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my colleague made an eloquent speech, but I would like to ask the member, how long does he think it is going to take? How many years is it going to take before he feels we can lose our dependency on fuel? He would like to change things so that we are not dependent on it anymore, and yet it is well known that this could take years. In my riding of Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, a lot of people cannot afford electric cars. They need to drive trucks because they work in agriculture or they work in professions where they need a large car, vehicles that are not even available as electric at this point. How many years is it going to take, and how many people are going to have to suffer if we do not take the taxes off fuel? [Translation ]

[Expand] Jean-Denis Garon: Mr. Speaker, I take issue with the question itself. The structure of the question seems like sophistry. What the member is saying is that because the transition will take time, there is no point in doing it step by step and we should abandon the attempt altogether and just drown ourselves in oil. We have consistently acknowledged that this will take time. We have not said that all pipelines must be shut down. We have said, and this is consistent with the International Energy Agency's position, that we should not undertake new projects. We need to embark on a transition to secure the new energy that we need, taking a step-by-step approach. What the Conservatives are saying is that since this cannot be done right away, there is no point in doing it at all, because people will suffer if the whole thing cannot be done right away. It is like a dog chasing its tail. It is not going to get very far. I think we need to take a step-by-step approach and act responsibly. We need policies that incentivize a transition. No one here in Parliament has ever said that we will suddenly stop needing oil and gas one day. That has never happened. (1140) [Expand] Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as my colleague accurately pointed out, this morning's Liberal announcement will not necessarily benefit the most vulnerable people specifically. It will also run up the deficit. Can my colleague expand on this and talk about how increasing the deficit could affect the most vulnerable because of inflation and other factors? [Expand] Jean-Denis Garon: Mr. Speaker, this reminds me of the discussion we had yesterday and the witnesses we heard from at the finance committee. We all agreed that Canada has a productivity problem and that we need to grow our collective wealth. We also have to make sure that people's income, especially that of the poorest 20% of households, rises faster than the cost of living. That calls for private investment. We also agree that there is a deficit and that we will not wipe it out in two or three years. We are all realistic about that. However, every dollar the government borrows is a resource that is not necessarily available for loans to the private sector and for more productive investments. The long-term plan has to focus on productivity. Continuing to run up deficits and increase spending recklessly, day after day, every time the Conservatives move an opposition motion is totally at odds with what the Prime Minister says on a daily basis. [English ]

[Expand] Vincent Ho (Richmond Hill South, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there are moments in public life when a government is tested not by what it says, but by what it does when people are hurting. This is one of those moments. Across the country, Canadians are not just frustrated; they are stretched to the breaking point. They are making trade-offs that no family in a prosperous nation should have to make. They are choosing between filling the tank and filling the fridge, between getting to work and paying the mortgage, between keeping the lights on and keeping food on the table. At the centre of that pressure is the simple and avoidable reality: the cost of fuel. Here at home, fuel is not a luxury. It is not discretionary. It is the lifeblood of our economy. It is how a nurse gets to a night shift. It is how a contractor gets to a job site. It is how food gets from the farm to shelf. When fuel costs rise, everything else rises, and yet while Canadians here at home are paying more, Ottawa's coffers are taking in more. The Liberal government is cashing in on higher oil prices while forcing Canadians to pay more at the pump, making work more expensive, family life more expensive and running a business more expensive. Let me put it plainly. Canadians are being squeezed, and the Liberal government is profiting from that squeeze. That is why Conservatives are calling for zero tax on gas to give Canadians a break, not Liberal half measures that cut the tax half the way and for half the time. Last week, when asked what he would do about rising gas prices, the Liberal Prime Minister said, “That's something we're looking at.” Canadians do not need a Liberal government that is looking. They need a government that is doing. While the Liberal Prime Minister is following gas prices, Canadians here at home are falling behind. Every day of delay is another day families fall further behind. I want to tell the House about a woman I met in my riding of Richmond Hill South, a mother who works two jobs, one during the day and one on weekends. She does everything right. She budgets. She saves where she can. She does not ask for handouts. She only asks for a fair shot. Last week, she told me that filling up her car now costs her nearly $100. That is not a luxury vehicle. That is a basic car that gets her to work and gets her kids to school. She told me that she does not look at the total anymore, that she just stops when she cannot afford to keep going. Think about that for a moment. In Canada, in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, we have people who cannot afford to fill their tank, not because of laziness, not because of poor choices, but because the Liberal government in Ottawa is piling taxes on top of rising global prices. That is wrong. It is economically wrong. It is morally wrong. It is fiscally unsustainable. Canadians deserve a break. That is why Conservatives are calling on the Liberal government to scrap the 25¢ per litre on gas for all of 2026, not just simply to meet us halfway. Let us talk about some of the facts. Yes, global events like the conflict in the Middle East have driven up oil prices. That explains part of the increase. It does not explain why Canadians here at home are paying about 28¢ a litre more for fuel than Americans do just south of the border. That difference is not geography. It is not geopolitics. It is not destiny. It is a homegrown, made-in-Ottawa Liberal tax policy. It is the result of a Liberal government that has layered tax on top of tax on top of tax and expects Canadians to just absorb it. While Canadians here at home are struggling with higher prices, the Liberal government is enjoying a windfall. According to a former Liberal economic adviser, every $10 increase in the price of a barrel of oil generates about $2 billion in additional federal revenue in Ottawa's coffers. In recent weeks, oil prices are roughly $45 to $50 higher than the pre-war baseline. When we crunch the numbers, that is close to $9 billion to $10 billion in additional revenue flowing into Ottawa's coffers, money that is coming directly from the higher costs here at home that Canadians are paying. Here is the question. The Liberal government is making billions more because Canadians are paying more. Why is it not giving all of that money back and suspending all gas taxes for the rest of 2026? Conservatives are offering a clear, practical and immediate answer. Take $5 billion of that windfall to Ottawa and give it back to Canadians by removing all federal taxes on gasoline and diesel until the end of 2026, not next year, not after another study, but right now. That means suspending the 10¢-per-litre federal excise tax. It means suspending the GST on fuel, which puts about eight cents per litre on gasoline and four cents per litre on diesel. It means permanently eliminating the so-called Liberal clean fuel standard tax, which is already costing Canadians seven cents per litre and is set to rise to 17¢ per litre. (1145) Stacked together on top of one another, these Liberal taxes add up. They are crushing. When we remove them, Canadians will save about 25¢ per litre on gasoline and 21¢ per litre on diesel. That is about $20 every time a parent fills up a minivan. On average, that is more than $1,200 back in the pockets of a family of four by the end of the year. That is money for groceries and rent, and much-needed breathing room. Here is a key point. The Liberal government can afford to do the right thing, but it is choosing not to. Why will the Liberal government not borrow our Conservative ideas and provide immediate relief for Canadians here at home by scrapping all gas taxes and its beloved Liberal industrial carbon tax? Right now, the priority of the Liberal government is clear. It is to take more, give less and hope Canadians do not notice. Canadians across the country are noticing. They notice it every time they see a higher total at the pump, every time a delivery fee goes up and every time the grocery bill climbs even higher, because rising fuel prices do not stay at the pump. They spread through the entire economy. When transportation costs rise, suppliers raise their prices. We are already seeing it. Just last week, we learned that food producers are now introducing these new fuel surcharges on top of the food products they sell. When suppliers raise their prices, grocers pass those costs on. When that happens, families here at home pay more. Elevated fuel and transportation costs are compounding the affordability crisis faced by families after more than a decade of Liberal policies. Food banks are now seeing over two million visits per month, including from 700,000 children. A family of four is expected to spend $17,500 on food this year, which is $1,000 more than last year. Canada has become the food inflation capital of the G7, and that is not a title to be proud of. That is a warning sign, and it is directly linked to the policies of the Liberal government here at home. According to a recent academic study, the Liberal industrial carbon tax is undermining the competitiveness of our agri-food sector and has contributed to food prices rising 48% faster in Canada than in the United States. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has confirmed that the Liberals' so-called clean fuel regulations alone are adding seven cents per litre this year, rising to 17¢ per litre by 2030. It is starting to sound a whole lot like the Liberal consumer carbon tax. On top of that, the Liberal industrial carbon tax is rising to $170 per tonne, costing workers over $1,100 per year, shrinking the economy by 1.3% and putting 50,000 Canadian jobs at risk. These are the real consequences of Liberal ideology. The Liberals can provide immediate relief to everyday Canadians by scrapping the Liberal industrial carbon tax and suspending the punishing 25¢ per litre of tax on gas, including the Liberal fuel standard tax for all of 2026. Canada's affordability crisis is not an unintended consequence of global factors. This is the predictable result of deliberate Liberal policy choices here at home, choices that prioritize ideology over affordability and treat working Canadians as a revenue source rather than people to serve. Let us take a step back and look at the broader picture. After a decade of Liberal government, Canada is falling behind here at home. The OECD reports persistent weakness in business investment, GDP growth is projected to decline this year and, since 2015, Canada's GDP growth rates have lagged behind the United States. A recent report shows that business investment adjusted for inflation and labour force growth has declined since its 2014 peak. More than half of Canadians are not living in their ideal home, mortgage affordability continues to worsen across the country and young people are being completely priced out. This is not a blip. It is a pattern. Here at home, Canadians are facing higher costs, lower growth and fewer opportunities and now, instead of course correcting, the Liberal government is doubling down. The Liberal Prime Minister told Canadians he would bring serious economic leadership and reverse the damage of the last Liberal prime minister, but Canadians here at home are still waiting while costs rise, while wages fall behind and while their government looks at their problem. Canadians have been pinching their pennies long enough. It is time for the Liberal government to pinch its own. Other countries understand this. Australia, Spain, Ireland, Italy, Germany and Austria have all moved to cut fuel taxes to provide direct relief at the pump. Behind every statistic is a real person here at home, working hard, doing everything right and still falling behind. The mother of two working two jobs should not need a pay raise just to fill up her tank. (1150) [Expand] Carlos Leitão (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, fuel prices are, indeed, very high. Crude oil prices went from about $60 a barrel at the end of February to about $100 a barrel at the moment, and they might even go much higher. The Strait of Hormuz remains closed. I do not think that has anything to do with Liberal policy. In the motion of our colleagues, they point to the permanent elimination of the fuel standards regulations. Really? In 2026, they want to permanently eliminate fuel standards? Is that what the Conservatives stand for? [Expand] Vincent Ho: Mr. Speaker, Conservatives are calling for the permanent scrapping of Liberal taxes. That includes the 10¢ federal excise tax and the GST on top of all those taxes, and the Liberals' so-called clean fuel standard tax. Let us not forget that the 25¢-a-litre tax, the removal of which we are calling for, is a Liberal made-in-Ottawa problem. It cannot just be blamed on global oil prices. This is a time when Canadians are facing an affordability challenge. Two million Canadians are relying on food banks, and 700,000 of them are children. As well, food prices are expected to rise by about $1,000 for a family this year. Conservatives are providing real solutions. Will the Liberals support this? [Translation ]

[Expand] Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised by what the Conservatives are proposing today. I am not surprised that it is yet another pro-oil proposal, as we are used to that, but I am surprised that they are proposing to increase the deficit by more than $7 billion with all these tax exemptions. Meanwhile, every time the government delivers a deficit budget, they get all worked up about it, although perhaps they have good reason to do so, since recent deficits have been quite excessive. The Conservative leader has said that every new expenditure would be offset by savings, but they are still proposing to add $7 billion to the deficit. Where are the savings the Conservatives are proposing, or are they suggesting that that government should simply run a bigger deficit? (1155) [English ]

[Expand] Vincent Ho: Mr. Speaker, this is not deficit spending. This is taking from the windfall that Ottawa is receiving from elevated oil prices. The Liberal government is not returning that money, which belongs to Canadians, and putting it in the pockets of Canadians at a time of an affordability crisis. Even for people who do not drive or take public transit, fuel tax still affects the price they pay at the grocery store. Just last week, we learned that a major food producer is now slapping a fuel surcharge on all the food they are selling in bulk. Eventually that is going to make its way to the prices at the grocery store. Conservatives are calling on the Liberal government to do the right thing and scrap the 25¢-a-litre tax on gas for the rest of 2026. [Expand] Ned Kuruc (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives on this side have been listening to Canadians, and that is why we have brought forth the cutting of gas taxes. Today we have seen that the Prime Minister has caved to Conservatives, because we are actually listening to Canadians, but again it is not all the way. It is halfway. I would like my colleague to enlighten us on why this is so important to his riding, because I know his riding is a transportation hub as well. Can he let us know what it would mean to scrap all the gas taxes for a full year and not just halfway until Labour Day? [Expand] Vincent Ho: Mr. Speaker, yes, it would affect everyone across the country, including residents in my riding of Richmond Hill South, whether that is in lower food prices, lower transportation costs or a lower price to pay at the pump. Instead of focusing on delivering on solutions to address the affordability challenges the Liberal government has caused, the Liberal government is laser-focused on trying to stitch together a Liberal majority government through dirty backroom deals that Canadians did not vote for and to overcome the power of the people. The Liberal government should be focused on Canadians rather than on dirty backroom deals. [Expand] Sandra Cobena (Newmarket—Aurora, CPC): Mr. Speaker, right now Canadians are being hit twice, first at the grocery store and then at the gas pump. Canadians are paying close to two dollars a litre for gas, a 35% increase that follows them everywhere: to work, to school and to the people they love. Here is what makes it worse: While Canadians are paying more, the Liberal government is profiting more. Because of rising gas prices, the federal government is expected to take in billions of dollars in additional tax revenue, which is money it never budgeted for. While it rakes in the profits, Canadians are left with higher bills they did not budget for. Let us be clear. This does not stop at the pump. Higher fuel costs ripple through everything. They raise the cost of shipping. They raise the cost of farming. They raise the cost of food. Therefore, when Canadians walk into the grocery store, they are paying not just for groceries but also for failed Liberal government policy, which continues today. Conservatives are happy we were able to force the government to cut some of the the taxes on fuel, but these measures hardly satisfy even a quarter of the affordability measures we have demanded. Not only that, but these half-baked measures are only for the summer. Clearly the Prime Minister is buying a short-term political win while leaving Canadians with a long-term affordability crisis. We have all known for some time that the Liberal affordability crisis is not seasonal, so Canadians are asking a simple question: Why is the Liberal government profiting while Canadian families are struggling? Other countries, such as Australia, Spain, Ireland, Italy, Germany and Austria have already moved to provide direct relief at the pump. They immediately lowered fuel taxes. They stepped back and gave their people breathing room, because in extraordinary times, government should take less, not more. Therefore, I reiterate our entire ask for the rest of the year: Give Canadians a break, drop all federal taxes on gas and diesel, and let Canadians keep more of what they earn, because they need it now more than ever. The government promises its programs can deliver affordability, but it is an economic truth that a government cannot spend its way to affordability. Each dollar spent by the Liberal government was first a dollar that belonged to and was taken from a hard-working Canadian. While it stands to take billions of dollars in additional revenue from higher gas prices it did not budget for, Canadians are being crushed by increasing grocery bills and gas prices they have not budgeted for. The Liberals respond by saying that this is a global problem and that it is sort of out of their control, but Canadians know better. When we look at the facts, we see that this is not just a global problem. It is a made-in-Canada problem as well. Canada has the highest food inflation in the G7, in a country with some of the most fertile land on earth. We have the highest food inflation among our peers. The same is true for energy. Canada is one of the most resource-rich countries in the world. We have massive oil and gas reserves, yet Canadians are paying some of the highest prices. That is because for years the Liberal government has blocked development, discouraged investment and choked growth in our energy sector. It continues to do so. Basic economics tells us that when costs go up, prices go up, and when supply is constrained, prices go up as well. Canadians are living that reality every single day. If we layer on the years of excessive spending, the deficits piled on deficits, and a dollar that does not stretch the same way it used to, what is the result? It is higher fuel costs, higher food costs and lower purchasing power. (1200) The Liberal government says, “Trust us. We will take your money but will give it back at some point.” Canadians do not want a middleman taking a cut. Canadians do not want affordability filtered through Liberal bureaucracy. They are saying clearly and firmly to stop taking so much in the first place, because affordability does not come from handouts. It comes from letting people keep what they earn and from building an economy that actually works. The Prime Minister has doubled the deficit run by Trudeau. Now, with gas prices soaring, he is clinging onto the expected billions of dollars in additional revenue to make a tiny dent in his projected $80-billion deficit. The Liberals' announcement affects only a third of the taxes on fuel they collect, for a third of the year. The unchanged impact is the GST on fuel costs of seven cents per litre and other taxes. While the Liberal government could have budgeted but did not, Canadians are paying higher gas prices for which they could not have budgeted. The Liberal government, of course, is raking in billions in profits. Canadians are left paying for the Liberal government's reckless fiscal irresponsibility. This weekend, I spoke with a couple in my community whom I have known for nearly 20 years. They are seniors, and they still live in the same home that I used to visit when I was in high school. They told me that they needed to return to work, as their pensions are no longer enough to cover basic essentials. Their pensions do not go as far. Their grocery bills have doubled. Their gas bills keep climbing. After a lifetime of work, they have had to go back to work, not because they want to but because they have to. There was a time in this country when seniors could retire with dignity, when they could trust that what they had saved was enough and that their government would protect, not erode, their standard of living. However, today inflation is eating away at those savings, and rising costs are forcing impossible choices. Do seniors fill the tank, or do they fill the fridge? Do they visit their grandchildren, or do they stay at home to save gas? This is not the Canada they built. It is not just our seniors. Young families are feeling it too. Parents are looking at their children, and they asking what kind of country they are leaving behind, because they remember a different Canada, a Canada where we could afford groceries, we could afford gas and we could afford a life. Today, a simple trip to the grocery store can cost $300 for two bags of food, then we go to the pump and get hit again. Canadians are tired of being squeezed, of being told this is normal and of being told to trust the Liberals to restore affordability. Whom is this affordability for? Where are the homes the Liberals promised? Very few people in my riding benefit from the grocery credit, while everyone pays more at the pump and for groceries. My neighbours want the government to have the humility to understand one simple truth: It cannot spend its way to affordability. Each dollar spent by the Liberal government was first a dollar belonging to and taken from hard-working Canadians. Let us do the right thing. Give Canadians a real break at the pump, cut all taxes on gas and diesel for the rest of the year and start putting money back where it belongs, which is in the pockets of the people who earned it first, because in this country, the Liberal government should not profit from the hardship of its people. (1205) [Expand] Carlos Leitão (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have just had a very clear exposé of why we cannot be in favour of the Conservative motion. First of all, the recent increase in gasoline prices comes as a result of the war in the Middle East. Most importantly, as my hon. colleague mentioned very clearly, the heart of the issue is the fact that she said, “affordability does not come from handouts.” We believe that direct government assistance and social programs are key components of the government's role and of making life more affordable for Canadians. Does my hon. colleague find any virtues in things like the Canada child benefit? [Expand] Sandra Cobena: Mr. Speaker, we are calling for long-term, permanent solutions to affordability. Programs and handouts do not address long-term affordability issues. They do not target the cost of living. A handout will not address the cost of living. This is something the member must understand. What Conservatives are calling for are permanent, long-term solutions, removing the taxes that are driving up the cost of everything, encouraging hard work and encouraging Canadians to actually keep their money, to be responsible, to open up businesses and to create wealth. That is how we grow the economy permanently, not through short-term programs. The reality with the program the member opposite mentioned is that only one out of 20 kids benefits from it. [Expand] Kurt Holman (London—Fanshawe, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to applaud my colleague from Newmarket—Aurora for her fantastic speech. I agree with her that the Liberals should suspend the fuel taxes until the end of the year, not only to help just the people of London—Fanshawe, who I have heard from, who are concerned about the rising fuel prices, but also to help Canadians from coast to coast to coast. I wonder if my colleague could elaborate on the benefit of suspending fuel taxes until the end of the year. [Expand] Sandra Cobena: Mr. Speaker, we are in a time when Canada has big problems, and we need to address them immediately and thoroughly. With our proposal today, we are outlining a wholesome proposal to address the affordability problem and the rising cost of gas that every Canadian across our country feels. As I mentioned, Canadians feel it at the grocery store and then feel it again at the pump. It follows Canadians who do not have a choice but to go to work and drop off the kids at school. These costs impact Canadians all day, every day. (1210) [Translation ]

[Expand] Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette—Manawan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have two quick questions for my colleague. First, the total cost of everything being proposed here amounts to $13 billion annually, which would increase the deficit by that amount. Would it not have been better to propose more targeted measures? Second, with regard to the clean fuel standard, the motion says that it would save seven cents per litre. These calculations are based on the price difference between biofuels and oil at a time when oil was cheaper. However, with the current price surge, the two are now the same price. This means we go from saving seven cents per litre to saving nothing. Why does my colleague want to keep this part of the motion? [English ]

[Expand] Sandra Cobena: Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the budget, I do not believe that the government should be benefiting from a surge in prices and taking in this tax revenue at the cost of Canadians. The government had the opportunity to budget properly, to lower expenses and to attempt to balance the budget in that way, not at the cost of Canadians. [Translation ]

[Expand] Carlos Leitão (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I must inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Mont-Saint-Bruno—L'Acadie. It is my turn to speak to the motion moved by our Conservative colleagues. I will try to cover five themes if I can stay on track and maintain my focus. First of all, I would like to remind all of my colleagues that the Conservative Party's motion contains four parts. The Conservatives are calling on the government to remove the fuel excise tax; to remove the GST on gasoline and diesel for 2026; to permanently remove what the Conservatives call the fuel standards tax, which is actually the fuel standards regulations; and to permanently remove the industrial carbon tax. According to their calculations, these four measures could lower the price of gas by 20¢ to 25¢ per litre. Obviously, we do not agree with those proposals, and we will be voting against the motion. I would like to explain why we are in this situation. I believe it has been said multiple times, but it is important to reiterate nevertheless. The price of crude oil has increased from around $60 a barrel at the end of February to around $100 today due to the war in the Middle East and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. This situation is extremely worrisome because we do not know how it will end. I doubt that anyone today can claim that things will go back to the way they were. No one can say that, and neither can the possibility that the price of oil will reach $150 a barrel be dismissed out of hand. We do not know. The Strait of Hormuz is still closed. Twenty per cent of the world's oil production transits through the strait. Some extremely important segments of the global economy, notably in Asia, are starting to experience fuel shortages. The current oil crisis is probably as big, or even bigger, than the oil crises the global economy has experienced in recent decades. This is not a minor disruption. It is a major shock, and we do not know how all of this will be resolved. Furthermore, in retaliation for the U.S. attack, Iran destroyed a lot of energy infrastructure in the Gulf countries. Even if the Strait of Hormuz reopened tomorrow morning, fuel transportation could not resume as it was before February 28. This is an extremely worrying period for the global economy. We need to plan our next steps carefully because we simply do not know what the future holds for energy. In Canada, we have enough energy for our own needs. There will clearly be no energy shortage in Canada, unlike in the 1970s. However, it is also clear that it is very difficult to determine the price of energy at this time. That is the context in which we find ourselves. It is important that we take it into consideration when developing public policies to support Canadians, who are indeed facing a major increase in gasoline prices, which will have repercussions on the entire food supply chain, on transportation and so on. (1215) One part of the Conservative motion calls for a suspension of the fuel excise tax. As the Prime Minister announced, we are going to do that. However, we cannot implement the other parts of the motion. I will try to explain why I believe that we cannot and must not do so. First, we are being asked to suspend the GST, which is a tax that was actually created and implemented by a Progressive Conservative government in the early 1990s. It is a value-added tax. This tax is effective because it is set at a relatively low rate and has very few exemptions or exceptions. That is what makes the GST work. In Europe, for example, the value-added tax is set at a much higher rate and includes a complex system of exemptions and exceptions that make it extremely difficult to manage. First, it is clearly better to have a consumption tax than an income tax. Next, if we have a consumption tax, then it is better to keep the rate relatively low but allow for very few exceptions and exemptions. It has to be easy to administer. Let us be clear: Such a value-added tax must also support, promote and give preference to local and national producers over imported products. That is why it is so complex. We have to think twice or three times before we start making changes to the Canadian GST. It is best not to go there. We also think that another part of the Conservative motion is completely inappropriate. It has to do with what they call the clean fuel tax, but what is actually the clean fuel regulations. What our friends are proposing is to completely eliminate those regulations. It is 2026. I think we need to continue to have clean fuel regulations so that the air in cities and rural areas is breathable. We do not want to go back to the good old days when people could burn just about anything and with no regard for the impact it would have on the air we breathe. Our American neighbours seem to want to go back to those days. No, we need to keep these regulations in place to make the air breathable. Our children need to be able to breathe. Regarding the industrial carbon tax, I have always thought that Conservatives could understand how this kind of tax works. Ultimately, it is based on the pricing system. The pricing system sends the necessary signals to allocate resources in an economy. As I have already said before in the House, this is something that has been used by well-known socialists, such as Brian Mulroney with Canada's Clean Air Act or Ronald Reagan and the Clean Air Act. I still think it is important that we have such mechanisms in an advanced and open economy like Canada's. In closing, as I said earlier, we are still going to suspend the fuel excise tax. It will provide a little boost. We have already implemented other measures to help consumers, including the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, which transfers funds directly into the accounts of the Canadian families most affected by affordability issues. That is a targeted program that we can improve in the future if necessary. (1220) [English ]

[Expand] Ted Falk (Provencher, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the parliamentary secretary's speech. He talked about the rising cost of oil on the global markets and how that is affecting the price of gas and diesel fuel here. What he did not say is that when the price of fuel rises, the amount of taxes charged on that fuel also increases significantly. He did not talk about the $10 billion in extra revenue that the Liberal government is going to be realizing on the increased pricing. Yesterday, I asked the Prime Minister if he would consider four things: removing the federal excise tax on gas and diesel, removing the fuel standard tax, removing the industrial carbon tax and removing the GST for the balance of the year. That would have put $5 billion back into the pockets of Canadians at 25¢ a litre. The Prime Minister has only gone part of that way, with 10¢ a litre on gas and four cents a litre on diesel fuel. Can the parliamentary secretary tell me why the government is only putting that measure in until September— [Expand] The Deputy Speaker: I interrupt the member to give the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry a chance to respond. [Expand] Carlos Leitão: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult at this point. We cannot make the assumption that the government would get $16 billion. We do not know if the oil shock will lead us into a recession and if government revenues would actually go down. It is very audacious on the Conservatives' part to say so clearly that there would be a $16-billion windfall in revenue. We just do not know that at this point. [Translation ]

[Expand] Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette—Manawan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the hon. parliamentary secretary on his content-rich speech. I would like to hear his thoughts on what tax specialist Luc Godbout said a few months ago about how we need to resist the temptation to lower the gas tax for either budget-balancing or environmental reasons. I would add to that the pressure that will be felt when the fuel excise tax comes back into effect on Labour Day. Will public pressure not be so strong that it will be difficult to bring that tax back in September? Finally, would it not have been wiser to implement targeted measures for the trucking industry and for people in greater need, for example, rather than temporarily suspending the fuel excise tax? (1225) [Expand] Carlos Leitão: Mr. Speaker, I am very familiar with Luc Godbout, who my colleague quoted. I am very familiar with his comments and I think that, generally speaking, he is right. However, we are currently experiencing such a major shock that we had to do something quickly. The quickest measure to put in place was to suspend the fuel excise tax. [English ]

[Expand] Ned Kuruc (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleague on the other side can advise his colleagues to stop calling us obstructionists, because today we have witnessed what a healthy opposition can do. We have held their feet to the fire. We have been calling for zero tax on gas and now the Prime Minister has actually made an announcement that he is going halfway until Labour Day. We want zero taxes for the whole year. Make no mistake, this would not have happened if Conservatives had not brought this issue forward. I would like my colleague to acknowledge that if it were not for the Conservatives, we would not be seeing relief at the pumps today. [Expand] Carlos Leitão: Mr. Speaker, like everybody in this room, we can read the newspapers. We can see what is going on at the gas pumps and the impact of higher global oil prices, so we have to do something. The fastest way to assist consumers is by suspending the excise tax. If other measures need to be taken later on, we will consider them as well. [Translation ]

[Expand] Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba (Mont-Saint-Bruno—L'Acadie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our government has stepped up its efforts to make life more affordable for Canadians because we need to take action and get moving. The current global environment is evolving rapidly, and there is a lot of uncertainty around the global economy. Canada is no exception, and Canadians and Canadian businesses are seeing this every day. Our government is focusing on what it can control: building a stronger economy and making life more affordable for Canadians. We have introduced a number of measures to lower the cost of living and enable Canadians to keep more of their hard-earned money. Let us talk about the excise tax announcement. It is great that the Leader of the Opposition made sure to mention gas prices in the motion. The military conflicts going on around the world are affecting refinery capacity and oil and gas transport networks. The government is mindful of the fact that while these conflicts may be happening in distant lands, consumers have been forced to pay higher prices at the pump here in Canada. We know that this is creating uncertainty, causing stress and putting pressure on families trying to make ends meet. As the Prime Minister indicated earlier today, our government will provide significant relief for the cost of fuel by suspending the federal excise tax on gasoline and diesel starting on Monday, April 20, and until Labour Day on September 7. Currently, the federal excise tax is 10¢ per litre for gasoline and four cents per litre for diesel. The suspension of this tax is expected to save Canadians about $5.75 on a full 50-litre tank of regular gasoline and up to $2.30 on a full tank of diesel. This represents total relief of more than $2.3 billion. The price of gas, among many things, reflects current circumstances abroad that have an impact on Canada, which requires targeted intervention from the government to help Canadian families. By reducing the cost of gas and diesel directly at the pump, we are taking a clear step to support families as they face the current hardships. The measure will cost a little more than $2 billion, so it will not jeopardize government finances or our other efforts to build the strongest economy in the G7. The provinces also have their own gas and diesel taxes and, if they want, they can implement their own measures too. What we are doing is using the federal fiscal situation, which is better due in part to higher oil prices, to provide targeted support to households and businesses. Note that this support is in addition to other measures already in place. We know that too many families are struggling to make ends meet at the end of the month. People do not need abstract promises. They need real, immediate and lasting support. That is exactly what our government is providing. That is why we launched the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit, which replaces and improves upon the old GST credit. It will provide more support to more than 12 million low- and modest-income Canadians. In real terms, starting this spring, a one-time payment equivalent to a 50% increase in the annual value of the GST credit for 2025 and 2026 will be paid out. That amounts to $3.1 billion of immediate relief in the pockets of families. In addition, as of July of this year, the value of the benefit will increase by 25% for five years, adding another $8.6 billion in additional support. In total, a family of four will receive $1,890 this year and around $1,400 per year over the next four years. A single person will receive up to $950 this year and about $700 in subsequent years. (1230) This is real support to pay for groceries, bills and everyday expenses. That is also why we eliminated the federal consumer fuel charge, a measure that has been in place for a year now and was formalized with the passage of Bill C‑4. Under that same bill, we also lowered taxes for nearly 22 million Canadian families by reducing the rate of the first personal income tax bracket from 15% to 14% in 2026. That is a savings of $420 per person and $840 for a two-income family. Under Bill C‑4, we also eliminated the GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes valued at $1 million or less, while reducing the GST for homes valued between $1 million and $1.5 million. We have also reached an agreement with the Government of Ontario to further reduce taxes for homebuyers. The government has also taken concrete measures to make the banking system fairer and more affordable for Canadians. Since March, consumers can no longer be charged more than $10 in fees when there are insufficient funds in their personal chequing account to cover a payment. Banks can no longer charge this fee more than once over a two-business-day period for the same account. Most importantly, no NSF fees can be charged when the overdraft is less than $10. This is another way our government is helping Canadians where it really counts. The government's measures to promote affordability, including the one announced today, clearly demonstrate how the government is helping Canadian families. As the Prime Minister said today, we cannot control what other nations do, but we can control what we build for ourselves. What we are doing here is building a strong and affordable Canada, so that our country has the strongest economy in the G7. [English ]

[Expand] Ned Kuruc (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals came out today, but I do not think they were prepared for the Prime Minister to announce that he was going to adopt Conservative policy, and so most of their debate has been on everything but cutting the gas tax. The Liberals and the Prime Minister have come halfway: half the taxes until Labour Day. My question to the member is: Why not cut all the taxes for the rest of the year and save Canadians even more money, because they have been listening, they have been emailing and they want real relief at the pumps? Why not go all the way, all the taxes for the rest of the year, and not just halfway to Labour Day? (1235) [Translation ]

[Expand] Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba: Mr. Speaker, we are a responsible government, and our actions are targeted and well thought out. For now, our government has made a timely decision to adapt as challenges arise. For now, the measure we have taken addresses the immediate needs of families. [Expand] Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette—Manawan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed to find that, when members are speaking French in the House, English-speaking members often speak louder than those speaking French. This happened during my colleague's speech, and it is happening at this very moment as I prepare to ask a question. This occurs on both sides of the House. It is a deeply saddening situation. Considering the current spike in gas prices, should we not be doing more to limit our dependence on the oil economy, such as by expanding the electrification of transportation and by doing more than what is currently being done? [Expand] Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba: Mr. Speaker, as a government, we make responsible decisions based on the budget that was announced. Our government made a decision while taking care not to compromise the budget in progress or create a deficit that could not be paid down. We therefore took targeted action, effective until September 7, to see how the situation would evolve. Our government is pragmatic. If things change, we can come back here and improve on our decisions, as needed. [Expand] Anthony Housefather (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I commend my hon. colleague on his speech. The Conservative motion is based on the assumption that the price of oil will stay the same until the end of year. Can my hon. colleague explain why this assumption is incorrect, given that we have no idea how the situation will unfold? [Expand] Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba: Mr. Speaker, we always make decisions based on the available data. The future price of oil, for which data has not yet been released and remains unknown, cannot serve as the basis for a decision. Our government decided today to lower the price of fuel because the data is known and has been published and we have the budget to do it. That is why we will always be a pragmatic, flexible and responsive government that helps Canadians. [Expand] Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to fight to eliminate the gas tax for the rest of the year so that every Canadian who drives will save 25¢ a litre, $20 per fill-up and $1,200 every year. This is part of our efforts as Conservatives to make life more affordable and put more money back in the pockets of hard-working people. We want to literally power our economy with more affordable gas and reverse the inflation we have seen over the past 10 years under the Liberals. Before I address that issue, I want to point out that, yesterday, the Prime Minister manufactured a costly majority that Canadians rejected in the last general election. He did it through backroom deals that run counter to the interests of the people, with the help of politicians who defied the choices of their own voters in the election. Canadians did not choose this majority. The Prime Minister has imposed it through backroom deals. This now forces the Prime Minister to deliver results. He has been in power for a year now, and it is important to look at the results achieved so far. He has doubled the deficit, given Canada the worst food inflation in the G7, the worst housing costs in the G7, the worst household debt in the G7 and the only shrinking economy in the G7. No pipelines have been approved, and no crime legislation has passed. He replaced the old carbon tax with a new one, but not everyone is suffering. Liberal insiders continue to profit from big contracts, the appreciation of their investments, and the list goes on. It is the same thing with the gas tax. The federal government gets 25¢ per litre for the gas tax. Today, the Prime Minister announced that he will be returning only a fraction of that amount to consumers, who are already overtaxed. He announced that he will simply suspend a third of federal taxes for a third of a year. We proposed eliminating all federal gas taxes for the rest of the year. Our Conservative approach would have allowed Canadians to save a lot more and would have provided relief to consumers, who need to keep more money in their pockets. We said that the government could recover the lost revenue in a number of ways. For example, because the oil companies are posting higher profits as a result of higher prices, the government is collecting much more revenue, enough to cover the revenue lost as a result of eliminating the gas tax for the entire year. Unfortunately, the Liberals have not yet managed to reverse the inflation that is costing Canadians so much. While it is true that the Government of Canada did not cause the increase in world prices, it is also true that prices are a lot higher in Canada than in the United States, and taxes are the reason for that discrepancy. The Liberals continue to pursue an inflationary policy. The Prime Minister has created a budget deficit of close to $75 billion, which is a lot more than the deficit left by Justin Trudeau. He is keeping all the anti-development laws in place and by so doing, he is preventing our economy from growing. The Liberals expect Canadians to give up, grow complacent and fade into the background so that they can exercise power without accountability. That is not going to happen. Our country and its people are worth fighting for. We are going to keep fighting for people to have housing, food and affordable energy. We are going to keep fighting for their safety. We are going to keep fighting for resource sector workers and for our soldiers. We are going to keep up our efforts to advance the interests of ordinary Canadians. I am going to keep leading the charge here, in the House, across the country and in the next election, when Canadians will take back control. We are going to rebuild the country that we know and love, and make it affordable for everyone. That is our goal. (1240) [English ]

I have risen today to address our Conservative proposal to eliminate all federal gas taxes for the rest of the year, saving families roughly 25¢ a litre, $20 per fill-up, and $1,200 between now and Christmas. However, before I address that, let me just address that the Prime Minister has manufactured a costly majority that Canadians rejected in the last election. He did it through dirty backroom deals against the interests of the people, with the help of politicians who betrayed their voters and their citizens. The Liberals wanted a majority. Well, absolute power comes with absolute responsibility. They will actually have to get things done. They will have to do so without blaming others, and they will have to start now. So far, that has not been the case. Here are the results of the Prime Minister. He has doubled the deficit and given Canada the worst food inflation in the G7, the worst household debt in the G7, the only shrinking economy in the G7 and the worst housing costs in the G7. No pipelines are approved, and no changes to the Criminal Code are approved. He has not replaced the carbon tax, but rather brought in a new carbon tax that, while currently lower, will rise higher and is much broader. He promised to cut red tape and remove barriers to building. He has not removed a single Trudeau-era anti-development law, but stacked new laws on top of old ones. He has not removed a single government agency; he has created 12 new ones. He said that we were facing an existential crisis that required immediate action at unimaginable speeds. After Parliament, in just five days, rushed through massive, unprecedented legal powers for him to get things approved, he has not used those powers to approve a single solitary project of any kind almost a year later: nothing. Speaking of projects, what about pipelines? What about the famous pipeline to the Pacific, the great symbol of our energy sovereignty? After a year of the Liberal Prime Minister promising unprecedented speeds, that project has no route, no permit, no builder, no timeline to start and no end date to be completed. Further, the only company that could potentially build it, Enbridge, has said that it is impossible to fill the pipeline, because the taxes and anti-production laws that the government has kept in place mean there will not be enough oil to run through it. Finally, the Prime Minister has added another condition: that the Alberta people spend $20 billion on a carbon capture project that will lose money every year into eternity, a project that has never been done anywhere in the world and has no builder, no permit, no start date and no timeline. The promise is a phantom, another illusion. The same is true with taxes. The federal government collects 25¢ a litre on gas and diesel. Today, the Prime Minister announced he will offer only a fraction of that back to overtaxed customers. In other words, he will only be suspending a third of the federal taxes for a third of the year. That is not good enough. Canadians cannot afford to put gas in their tanks. We want all gas taxes eliminated for the rest of the year to save Canadian families $1,200. We will continue this fight. We know that the government has the money. It is getting $5 billion in extra revenues from the fact that the oil companies are making more profits and therefore paying more tax automatically and organically. That money should go back into the pockets of consumers, not into the coffers of government. We want this country to be affordable so that Canadians can fill their tanks, fill their grocery carts, fill their fridges and fill their stomachs without emptying their bank accounts. Now, the Liberals would ask Canadians to give up on this expectation, to lower their plans and to accept less. We do not accept less. Canadians might be discouraged right now because of the current political situation, but let us say this: Canadians should not give up. We will continue the fight for Canadians to have affordable homes, affordable food and affordable fuel. We will fight for Canadians to have safe streets. We will fight for Canadians to have powerful paycheques and strong jobs. We will fight for our soldiers and law enforcement, who keep us safe. I will continue to lead that fight in this House, across this country and in the next election, when we, as Conservatives, will work to restore the country that we all know and love. (1245) [Translation ]

[Expand] Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba (Mont-Saint-Bruno—L'Acadie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the leader of the official opposition a question. Decisions are made gradually. One cannot make a decision unilaterally without weighing the consequences. That is why we always say that we can control what we do here at home. Today, the Prime Minister decided on a measured approach to reducing the cost of gasoline in order to bring costs under control so that people's finances are not overly affected. People should not assume that a unilateral decision leads to orderly, structured action. [Expand] Hon. Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, a unilateral decision is called for because the federal government imposed these taxes unilaterally. The federal government can choose to keep these taxes or get rid of them. The member is wondering how the government will make up for the lost revenue. The answer is that the government is bringing in more revenue because oil companies' profits are going up in step with rising prices globally. The question is, will the government choose to spend that revenue or leave it in consumers' pockets? Conservatives want to put it in Canadian consumers' pockets. (1250) [Expand] Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette—Manawan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am puzzled by the Conservative party's calculations, particularly in today's motion. For example, the Conservative Party claims that we would save seven cents per litre when it comes to the clean fuel standard, which they want to eliminate. This is based on an estimate by the Parliamentary Budget Officer from some time ago, in which he compared the cost of biofuels to that of oil. However, since then, we have seen a sharp rise in oil prices. The price of oil has risen and is now on par with that of biofuels. If this measure were abolished tomorrow morning, the seven-cent-per-litre reduction would no longer apply; it would actually be zero cents per litre. Why would they not be more thorough in their calculations when moving motions in the House? [Expand] Hon. Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the estimate of seven cents a litre does not just come from the Parliamentary Budget Officer; it also comes from the government itself. According to a report released by Environment and Climate Change Canada, the government regulations that are increasing the price of gas by seven cents a litre this year will increase it by 17¢ a litre by 2030. This is a tax. When the government imposes a fee at the pump and forces people to pay it, that is a tax. By eliminating this tax, the government could lower the price at the pump by seven cents a litre. On top of that, we want to get rid of the GST, which would mean a further reduction of seven or eight cents a litre, depending on the day. Finally, we are proposing to eliminate the 10¢-a-litre excise tax on gasoline. That is how the Conservatives are proposing to bring down gas prices by about 25¢ a litre for every Canadian family. [English ]

[Expand] Ned Kuruc (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today the Prime Minister succumbed to Conservative pressure. I would like to congratulate my colleague for all of his hard work. Today, because of him, Canadians are saving money at the pumps. The Prime Minister has cut half of the taxes until Labour Day. How important is it that the Prime Minister cut all fuel taxes for the rest of the year? [Expand] Hon. Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, it is true that the Prime Minister and the Liberals would not have done anything were it not for the leadership of the Conservatives in fighting for affordability. It is true that imitation is the highest form of flattery. Our only concern is that the Prime Minister only goes halfway for only half the time and ultimately goes back to his old ways. The Prime Minister favours a high-tax, big-government costly agenda. He always reverts to that in the long run. Everything else is an illusion. As Conservatives, we are the only ones who will eliminate these taxes completely. We are the only ones who will eliminate the entire carbon tax for everyone, for real, for good and forever. We are the only ones who will eliminate the inflation tax by cutting back on the outrageous overspending. We are the only ones who will unblock our resources and allow Canada to become a true energy powerhouse. Conservatives are the real deal, not an imitation. [Expand] Carol Anstey (Long Range Mountains, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to our opposition day motion to remove federal taxes on gas and diesel for the rest of 2026. All members have just returned from time spent in their ridings and I can share, just as I am sure many others can, that the number one concern I am hearing from constituents is the high cost of living. In Newfoundland and Labrador, which currently has one of the highest gas prices of any province in Canada, we are seeing the effects of these rising costs in ways we simply have not seen before. I speak with passion on this issue because of the incredibly difficult stories that I hear and that my staff hear regularly from the people that I represent. These are stories of families being stretched to their limits and facing choices no one should ever have to make. As a mom of four myself, someone who has worked really hard my entire life to stay and live and work in the province that I love, I can relate to these stories and situations. Canadians are being squeezed at every turn. They are paying more to drive to work, heat their homes and put food on the table. At the same time, the Liberal government is taking more from them with every litre of fuel that they pump and put into their vehicles. Canadians are doing everything right, working hard, budgeting carefully and cutting back where they can, but they are still falling behind. To begin, let us be clear about what is happening. As global oil prices rise, the government is seeing billions more in revenue, while Canadians are feeling the pressure of higher costs at the pumps. Rising prices are increasing government revenues at a time when Canadians are struggling to keep up. The most recent response from the Liberal Prime Minister is acknowledging that Conservatives have the solution for Canadians but delivering only a temporary measure that is not going to provide lasting, meaningful relief. Their announcement only affects a third of the taxes on fuel they collect for a third of the year. It minimizes the seriousness of what Canadians are facing. We need a Prime Minister who acts in the same measure that Canadians are feeling this pressure. They need meaningful, long-lasting relief. That is why Conservatives are putting forward a long-lasting, meaningful solution: Suspend the federal taxes on gasoline and diesel for the rest of 2026, permanently remove the fuel standard tax and permanently remove the industrial carbon tax. Conservatives are proposing the motion. A top Liberal economic adviser pointed out that every $10 increase in the price of oil generates roughly $2 billion in additional revenue. Oil prices are now roughly $45 to $50 higher than the pre-crisis baseline. This means that the Liberal government stands to collect close to $9 billion or even $10 billion in extra revenue, money it did not budget for, money the government currently stands to collect just because prices are high. In exchange, the Liberals only want Canadians to save 10¢ per litre and four cents on diesel. Our motion would save Canadians 25¢ per litre on gas and 21¢ on diesel. This is not real relief. Canadians are paying 35% more due to rising global oil prices, forcing Canadians to pay almost, and this is an important point, 20% more than Americans. Conservatives recognize the tough situation Canadians are facing. Instead of holding on to that windfall, we are proposing a meaningful approach to suspend federal fuel taxes for the rest of 2026 and permanently eliminate the clean fuel standard and the industrial carbon tax, which is projected to shrink the economy by 1.3% and lead to 50,000 job losses for hard-working Canadians. That is a real, tangible solution that creates real savings. Once again, this would mean saving 25¢ per litre on gasoline and 21¢ per litre on diesel. While in my riding, I recently spent several days travelling with my nine-year-old twins, Emma and William, to their provincial hockey tournaments. Like so many families across Newfoundland and Labrador, especially during Easter tournament season, this is a very important part of our lives. We travel long distances across our vast province to support our children and cheer them on, but these punishing fuel prices are making it harder for families to take part in those moments at a time when many are already stretched thin. One tournament meant driving from Deer Lake to Glovertown and back, approximately 600 kilometres, and another from Deer Lake to Clarenville, roughly 860 kilometres. Altogether, that is nearly 1,500 kilometres on the road just to be there for our kids. (1255) However, there is a tougher reality, outside of our kids' hockey tournaments, in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. People do not have the luxury of public transit. They drive long distances to get to work, to get groceries and to access basic services like health care, often travelling these vast distances to see a specialist or to access the only children's hospital. Truckers rely on fuel to deliver goods to our communities. Small businesses rely on fuel to move goods across long distances. Families rely on fuel just to get through the week. In addition, we rely on fuel to enjoy the back country on our snowmobiles and ATVs or to access to our cabins. Many cabin owners in the area where I live travel every single weekend to ice fish, pick their berries, cut their firewood, go moose hunting and enjoy the company of their cabin neighbours and friends. Owners of small business operations rely on those activities to sustain them and when fuel prices increase, these businesses are at risk, not to mention our rural way of life. Therefore, when the cost of fuel rises, it hits every single part of life in Long Range Mountains, in Newfoundland and Labrador and all across Canada. As one of my constituents told me, let us get rid of all of the taxes on gas. People cannot afford these hikes. It makes everything else more expensive, for example food. This is the reality people are living every single day. Across Newfoundland and Labrador, increased diesel prices that drive up the cost of shipping are so prevalent because, on an island, so much of our food, goods and services must be brought in mostly by tractor-trailer. That means that higher fuel costs translate directly into higher prices on store shelves. Single parents in my province are reaching out for help because their budgets are completely stretched. Soaring gas prices are adding a new level of stress to these families. People at the Single Parent Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, based in St. John's, have said that these rising costs can mean the difference between putting food on the table and heating a home. People are already seeing the impact. The association reported that almost 30 additional families have turned to it for support so far this year. All of these families had never had to ask for help before, and many are working professionals. Some are working two or even three jobs and still they cannot make ends meet. Almost 70% of those receiving food support from the association's food bank are children under the age of 17. That is the human cost of rising fuel prices. The association's executive member also reported that they have been staying in touch with government in the hopes that there will soon be relief. My message to them is that Conservatives are fighting with them on this issue, not just for temporary relief, but for long-lasting, meaningful relief. We know that when gas prices go up, everything goes up. Groceries become more expensive because transport costs rise. Heating costs go up and for families in western Newfoundland who still rely on home heating fuel, those increases hit especially hard. Having spent my career in real estate, I can say that in many rural areas across our province, a significant number of households still depend on home heating fuel. Many of those residents are seniors living on fixed incomes with older properties in need of repairs and upgrades and this is an added cost that they cannot afford. Construction costs go up. Small business owners face higher input costs, higher delivery costs and higher operating costs. Suppliers add fuel surcharges. Local business owners are forced to pass on costs or cut back. We are seeing the same kind of leadership at home in Newfoundland and Labrador where the provincial government has taken action to permanently reduce the provincial tax on gasoline and diesel. That is what it looks like to recognize the pressure that people are under, with real relief. Here in Canada, the Liberals are doing the opposite. They are offering a temporary measure that is not going to provide the real relief that Canadians need. If the Liberal government is going to collect billions of dollars in unexpected revenue because of higher oil prices, the least it can do is return half of that money to fund real relief for the people who are paying it. Canadians are already doing everything that they can do to manage rising costs. They are cutting back, delaying purchases and making sacrifices. The question is whether the Liberal government is prepared to do something about it. We are offering a clear choice, immediate meaningful relief at the pump, and a plan that puts Canadians first and gives Canadians a break. The Prime Minister has already confirmed that Conservatives have the solutions for Canadians, but instead of only delivering a third of the taxes, I urge all members of this House to support this motion, stand with Canadian families, workers and small business owners, give them the relief they deserve and support our motion. (1300) [Expand] Hon. Buckley Belanger (Secretary of State (Rural Development), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member with respect to some of the points she and her leader have raised. This is a most serious matter as the whole world is struggling with high oil prices, not just Canada. We are not immune to that. I would ask the member this: Can Conservative MPs predict oil prices over the next six to 12 months? Do any Conservative MPs have the ability to stop the war in Libya? These confound and certainly concern all Canadians as we struggle with high oil prices. There are real external factors in relation to those matters. It is a serious discussion. Can the member answer this question: Can she stop the war in Libya, which is exposing Canadians to high oil prices across the country and throughout the world? (1305) [Expand] Carol Anstey: Mr. Speaker, obviously, I cannot stop any war, which is exactly why this proposal is so important. We are proposing that the Government of Canada, the Liberal government, do what it can in the face of what is happening right now and what Canadian families are facing. This is a meaningful measure that could reduce prices by 21¢ per litre on diesel and 25¢ on gas. We know we do not have control over other countries and the other things that are happening. What we do have control over is how we can put more money back into the pockets of Canadians. That is exactly what we are proposing. [Translation ]

[Expand] Mario Beaulieu (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ): Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the Conservatives are saying, eliminating the industrial carbon tax would have no impact on prices at the pump. Prices are based on the global price per barrel, not on extraction costs. Basically, the Conservative measure would be nothing more than a gift to the oil companies and it would have no impact on oil prices. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that. [English ]

[Expand] Carol Anstey: Mr. Speaker, I sit on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. The industrial carbon tax is something we are studying right now. We have heard numerous reports that it does nothing, simply because of carbon leakage. That means that, instead of these producers investing in our economy, they go into other countries that do not enforce an industrial carbon tax, so it has an impact on the overall economy. In addition to that, we know that, when we tax fertilizer and farm equipment, it eventually makes its way to the grocery store shelves and contributes to the increased cost of living for Canadians. That is what Conservatives are fighting. [Expand] Tamara Kronis (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, CPC): Mr. Speaker, one of the things I appreciate about my colleague's speeches is that she always brings things back down to basics in a way that is very relatable. Certainly, the things she spoke about are very relatable to my own riding. The government opposite keeps trying to look to external factors. I wonder if the hon. member would speak to the difference between the impact these higher prices have on the prices that consumers pay compared to the revenues of the government and tie that back to what we are talking about today. [Expand] Carol Anstey: Mr. Speaker, the government stands to collect $9 billion to $10 billion in revenue. We are asking for half of that to go back into the pockets of Canadians. What does that mean? It means that they would have more money for groceries, to attend their kids' events, to put back into local economies, to support local businesses and to make trips to their cabins. This is a real and tangible measure. There is also a tax on gas, which impacts everything, especially in Newfoundland and Labrador and rural Canada. This is a meaningful measure, which is exactly why Conservatives are proposing it. [Expand] Ryan Turnbull (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is great to be here this afternoon. I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Kingston and the Islands. I am thankful for the opportunity to warm up the crowd before he knocks it out of the park. I will start my remarks by thanking the people of Terrebonne, the people of Scarborough Southwest and the people of University–Rosedale for electing three strong, powerful women, Liberal candidates, to the House. I look forward to welcoming those members to the House and seeing our Prime Minister and the leader of the official opposition drag those members into Parliament to take their seats in the people's House. It is a great day in Parliament for Liberals as we note that the public has shown confidence once again in our leader. I appreciate the opportunity to participate in today's debate and to highlight the many announcements that our government is making to address the affordability challenges that we know Canadians are struggling with. It is clear that the current impact of military conflicts on global refinery capacity and fuel transport systems means Canadians and consumers around the world are facing higher prices at the pump, which is creating uncertainty and pressure on household finances. This is exacerbated by a number of crises that have happened over the last few years that we all, I am sure, would like to forget, and that have shocked our economy and made it challenging for families. We all acknowledge that. I am also pleased to say that we are taking further action to help Canadians manage these challenges, as announced earlier today by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance. The Prime Minister made it very clear that Canada's government will use the improvement in the fiscal outlook associated with higher oil prices to provide targeted relief to households and businesses. Specifically, we are reducing pressure on fuel prices at the pump by suspending the application of the federal fuel excise tax on gasoline and diesel, effective next week and lasting until Labour Day, September 7, delivering over $2.3 billion in relief. This temporary suspension of excise taxes for gasoline and diesel is expected to save the average Canadian filling up a 50-litre tank of fuel $5.75 on regular gasoline and up to $2.30 on diesel. This builds on one of the very first actions we took as a government, which we have talked about numerous times in the House. We lowered costs at the pump in most provinces and territories. Members opposite will remember their pleas to cancel the consumer fuel charge, and we did so with great ease. Canadians will save money on the price at the pump in provinces and territories. Our government also removed the requirement for provinces and territories to have a consumer-facing carbon price as of April 1, 2025. At the same time, our government understands that Canadians do not spend money just on gas, which is why we have been taking action to reduce other pressures on their household costs right across the board, including, for example, a recent announcement we made introducing the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, which builds on the former GST credit. We are increasing its amount by 25% for five years as of July 2026. In addition to that, we are providing a one-time payment, as early as possible this spring, equivalent to a 50% increase in the year 2025-26. That is a significant increase to the annual value of what was known as the GST credit. Combined, this means families of four will receive up to $1,890 this year and about $1,400 for the next four years. A single person will receive up to $950 this year and about $700 a year for the next four years. That is literally making life more affordable for millions and millions of Canadians. In fact, the Canada groceries and essentials benefit will provide additional support for more than 12 million Canadians. (1310) We are not only putting more money in the pockets of those who need it most, but also leaving more money in their pockets with our middle-class tax cut. We have lowered the first marginal personal income tax rate by 1%, from 15% to 14%, since July 1, 2025. That impacts 22 million Canadians. It saves the average person $420 a year and two-income families $840 a year. This rate reduction applies to taxable income of up to $58,523 in 2026, providing meaningful relief to middle-class Canadians during the current period of economic uncertainty. This is coupled with a number of other affordability measures that our government has moved forward on, one of which I am very proud of, and that is funding the national school food program to feed 400,000 more kids per year and ensuring that it continues in perpetuity by making that program permanent. We will continue to save families with two children $800 on their grocery bill over the course of a year. That is not insignificant. Members opposite mock this program. They have called it garbage and said a whole bunch of negative things to throw shade on the national school food program. I had the opportunity, before my political career, to serve on the board of Food Secure Canada, which is an organization that works on food insecurity. A national school food program was its top ask of the federal government for many years. It is something I have advocated for regularly over the course of my time in Parliament. It is great to see that program get a federal investment of $200 million per year, matching the amounts that provinces and territories put in and ensuring that we get to feed 400,000 more kids who otherwise would not have food. It is appalling to me that the Conservatives did not support this program. That they mocked it and would not stand up for hungry children is just a sham. I also want to mention that we have worked on affordability issues in the housing market. We recognize that many young Canadians are struggling to purchase their first home, and that is a travesty, absolutely. We need to make sure we are building more affordable housing supply, but we have also made it easier by putting measures in place to help young Canadians buy their first home. We moved forward with the first-time homebuyers rebate. With this rebate, we have effectively eliminated GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes up to $1 million and reduced the GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes between $1 million and $1.5 million. That tax cut, in addition to the others I have mentioned, saves families a lot of money on the purchase of their first home, up to $50,000 on their first home under $1 million. That allows young Canadian families to enter the housing market, making the goal of home ownership a reality for young families. That $50,000 is not an insignificant support, and that is in addition to reducing mortgage insurance, allowing tax-free savings accounts for young families to save for the purchase of their first home and a whole package of other measures that are focused on increasing the housing supply in Canada. We also moved forward recently with taking action on putting a cap on insufficient funds fees, making banking more fair for average consumers across Canada. Those fees are relatively small, but capping them to $10 is a significant improvement that will save some of our most vulnerable people in Canada a considerable amount of money. The bottom line is to support Canadians through the current global energy market disruptions. Our government is delivering timely, meaningful and tangible relief for Canadians at a time when they need it most. We are doing so across a wide range of fronts and many categories of the household budget. Our announcement today that we are suspending the federal excise tax on gasoline and diesel is just the last of many concrete steps that we are taking to support Canadians through these challenging periods and positioning them for long-term success by building the strongest economy in the G7. (1315) [Expand] Tamara Kronis (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today's announcement amounts to approximately four cents on the price of diesel. Diesel runs the trucks that deliver food everywhere. Diesel runs just about everything on Canadian farms and helps get food and other goods to communities like mine. Given the magnitude of the windfall that the government is experiencing as a result of the increase in revenues that come from gas taxes under the current circumstances, how can the government justify not giving every single penny of that windfall back to Canadians at this time? [Expand] Ryan Turnbull: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to answer this question. What the Conservatives usually do, as we see in the House, is this kind of “back of the napkin” math. They did not really look at exactly how much revenue is going to be generated through additional taxes, in this particular case. They are forecasting a lot more that they think is going to come in but that has not come in yet. They are not able to predict the global energy markets. They do not know that the federal government is going to have the amount of money they are projecting. In fact, we are doing exactly what we should be doing, which is offering a 10¢-per-litre break at the pump on gasoline for Canadians, using the $2.3 billion of collected tax revenue to offer direct support for Canadian families. (1320) [Translation ]

[Expand] Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague across the way. He is boasting about his government's new policy, which was inspired by the Conservatives. It is, in fact, a direct response to what the Conservatives were calling for. It appears that some Conservatives are quite inspired by the Liberals too, as more and more of them are switching to the Liberal Party. That being said, the government's decision to reduce the fuel excise tax by 10¢ could have a positive impact on the finances of people who use their gasoline-powered vehicles every day, given the sharp rise in gas prices. I am not sure that those 10¢ will make a huge difference. We all know that the increase was much higher than 10¢. In that context, is the current rise in gas prices actually not a clear illustration of our dependence on fossil fuels, which we need to break free from and address more urgently instead of making short-term decisions, the way the government is now, that ultimately will not really change anything? [English ]

[Expand] Ryan Turnbull: Mr. Speaker, I know the member opposite knows that this government is working to make Canadians less reliant on fossil fuels in many ways. We are also supporting Canadians where they are at, which is struggling with affordability challenges and cost of living challenges at home. In their daily lives, they need to fill up at the pump. We are giving them a break right now, just as we introduced many other affordability measures to ease the burden on Canadian families. That is something we have been doing. In my speech, I talked about the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, a tax cut for 22 million Canadians on income tax, waiving the GST on new home purchases, cancelling the federal consumer carbon tax, making the national school food program permanent, introducing automatic federal tax filings and benefits, lowering the costs and strengthening competition on essentials in Canada, which we did through three rounds of changes to the Competition Act, and the Canada child benefit and dental care. All of these things are addressing the cost of living challenges Canadians are struggling with. [Expand] Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it feels like Groundhog Day showing up here. We come here and hear the Liberals adopting Conservative policies, such as removing the carbon tax. The Conservatives said the sky was falling because of the carbon tax. Now it is the gas tax, or austerity, or the first-time homebuyer tax that my colleague talked about. That has not made housing more affordable. What we see constantly with Liberals and Conservatives is that they are standing up for corporate greed and the corporate machine. Big oil, for example, is posting record profits right now. What is the amount of record profits that big oil can charge before the Liberals or Conservatives will start implementing an excess profit tax so it pays its fair share? [Expand] Ryan Turnbull: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member opposite's interventions in this House. He is a wonderful member, and we welcome collaboration with him at any moment. What is great is that there is no real limitation on us taking good ideas that are generated by any party in the House and implementing those on behalf of Canadians. We have done that numerous times with proposals from multiple parties. We have seen that with the Canada dental care plan. Obviously the NDP was a big advocate for a national school food program as well. We worked seamlessly at times to further— [Expand] The Deputy Speaker: Resuming debate, the chief government whip. [Expand] Hon. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to the motion the Conservatives have put forward. I want to speak to the content of the motion for a few minutes, and then I would like to talk a bit about some of the comments I heard from the Leader of the Opposition today, when he was speaking an hour or so ago. I think it is important to reflect on something my colleague for Whitby basically said. Conservatives seem to have devised this plan and what we see in this motion on the back of a napkin. There was not a lot of thought put into it, in terms of actually trying to use data to determine what the best result would be, in line with what that additional income would be, with respect to the gas tax. What the Prime Minister proposed today was something that is data driven, something that does actually look at the data. Rather than trying to predict what the price of gas and oil is going to be by the end of the year, which the Conservatives are trying to do, our approach is to say, “Let us take this on an incremental basis. Let us do this for four months, and then we can assess where we are at that point.” That is, I think, the data driven, realistic, pragmatic approach that should be taken. I must admit that I got a bit of a kick out of it when I was sitting here today listening to the debate and Conservatives got up to say, “Well, you just stole our idea. That was our idea.” I would like to think we come here with ideas and try to put them forward to make the lives of Canadians better. Quite frankly, as far as I am concerned, if the Conservatives want to say this was their idea, they can have all the credit for it. At the end of the day, the most important thing is that we make the lives of Canadians better. If they can agree that this is going to do that, perhaps not as much as they would have liked or as much as they would have thought it should, I guess I should say, then that is an issue to discuss. As the parliamentary secretary who spoke before me said, the government has done a lot to make life more affordable for Canadians, with a suite of different things that have been brought in throughout the weeks and months leading up to today. To name some of them, we introduced the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, and we cut taxes for 22 million Canadians pretty much on day one after this government was elected. We eliminated the GST for first-time homebuyers to help people who are renting and just about to purchase a house to get into the affordability of home ownership. We cancelled the federal consumer carbon tax, as was discussed. We made the national school food program permanent, introduced automatic federal benefits, and lowered costs and strengthened competition in essential services. We expanded and entrenched the Canada child benefit and lowered the costs of child care and kid essentials, including $10-a-day child care and interest-free student loans. We introduced the Canada dental plan, pharmacare, the $500 Canada housing benefit top-up for low-income renters, tax-free first home savings accounts and the Canada disability benefit. The list goes on and on. Yes, these things have one thing in common. The commonality is that they are intended to make the lives of Canadians more affordable, to increase affordability. They also, unfortunately, have something else in common. The other thing that these things have in common is that the Conservatives voted against all of them. It becomes very difficult to accept the word of Conservatives when they come in here trying to suggest they are here to make the lives of Canadians better, when everything I just read off, they voted against. I am in opposition to today's Conservative motion because I think the plan that the government laid out this morning is a much better approach to this. I also want to touch on something that the Leader of the Opposition said this morning. I will be honest with you, Mr. Speaker; I would not have brought this up had he not said it in the House. He actually said it both in English and in French. I want to pre-empt my colleagues across the way from trying to call a point of order and saying I am not speaking to something that is going on. I assure you that I will be speaking to exactly what I heard the Leader of the Opposition say this morning in this debate. (1325) He started off his speech by saying that the Prime Minister had cobbled together a majority, that there were “backroom deals”. He said politicians had “betrayed” their constituents. This was all in the discussion about members who are crossing the floor to this side. I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that there actually was a bill, Bill C-306, and that bill would have banned floor crossing. The Leader of the Opposition voted against it. He could have voted his conscience. As a matter of fact, the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman and the member for Airdrie—Cochrane did vote in favour of it. It was not a whipped vote on that side of the House back in the day. The Leader of the Opposition had the ability to vote to ban floor crossing. He did not do that. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Hon. Mark Gerretsen: Mr. Speaker, now his members are yelling, “Bring it back.” I thank those members for segueing perfectly into the next part of my point. My point is this. It is not about the principle of the matter for the Leader of the Opposition. It is not about the principle that one should not cross the floor. It is about when that principle is convenient, and the principle is convenient for the Leader of the Opposition now because it serves his purpose, which is why his members are yelling, “Bring it back.” Yeah, sure, they want it now. They would love to vote on that now because it is convenient and it suits their purposes. The reality of the situation is that when the Leader of the Opposition had an opportunity to vote on Bill C-306, which would have banned floor crossing, he voted against it. I find it very rich that he would come in here this morning and accuse the Prime Minister of doing something that he voted to maintain. By the way, it is something that is entrenched in Westminster democracy. I know the Speaker is personally very educated on Westminster democracy, the ins and the outs of it. He is being coy, in my opinion, but I believe he is. The reality is that this has been going on for years. Our system, the institution of members being elected, is based on the principle that we elect individuals, individuals who belong to political parties. If we elect an individual who then uses their conscience, after 10 years of speaking in the House, like the member for Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, and they get up and say they think their principles line up better with another political party, then she or any member has the right to move around the room. The Leader of the Opposition can try to say that is not the case. He can try to say it is backroom deals and everything else, but that is the reality of our Westminster parliamentary system, and it is why the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Battle River—Crowfoot, voted against Bill C-306 when he had the opportunity. (1330) [Expand] Hon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills North, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada released The Daily just yesterday about the income and wealth distribution of Canadians last year under the Liberal government. Here are the opening two sentences of that report: “The income gap increased in 2025 as lower income households were negatively affected by declining interest rates and weak growth in employment income. The wealth gap grew throughout 2025 as continued strong financial market gains benefited the wealthiest.” Would the member comment on his government's economic performance? [Expand] Hon. Mark Gerretsen: Mr. Speaker, I do not actually disagree with just about anything the member said. What I disagree with is his characterization that this is somehow unique to this government and unique to the last couple of years. If he wants to have an honest, open conversation about this, we should probably go back to Reagan economics back in the eighties when all of this began, because we have been seeing that growing divide between the haves and the have-nots since the eighties, since trickle-down economics. That is when this started. The member comes in here now and suddenly makes it seem like it is an issue that this government created, but that just is not true. The reality is that he is right. We need a strong middle class. We need to do everything we can to ensure that middle class stays robust and healthy. This is why the government has been introducing many different policies over the years. I read them all off in my speech, which I am sure he heard. The unfortunate reality is that the member voted against all of those measures I read off. [Translation ]

[Expand] Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I found the speech by my colleague opposite very interesting. My colleague laughed a bit about the Conservatives getting all worked up about floor crossers. He said that the Conservatives seem to have fairly flexible principles when it comes to floor crossers. I think he made a good point. This brought up another thought, and I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about it. The Conservatives are flexible in their principles because they do not always seem to respect them when they need to put them into action. However, on the Liberal side, we see that, over the past few months, the government has flat-out eliminated the carbon tax. In fact, today the government is taking a Conservative stance on the issue of the fuel excise tax. The government is funding pipelines even though it said it wanted to make the energy transition happen. In addition, the government is continuing to subsidize oil companies, even though, in its own election platform, it promised to stop subsidizing oil companies. What is more, the Liberals welcomed a floor crosser who, not so long ago, was opposed to banning conversion therapy, is reportedly against vaccines and is also against abortion. On the issue of principles, then, is the Liberals' problem essentially having— (1335) [English ]

[Expand] The Deputy Speaker: The hon. chief government whip. [Expand] Hon. Mark Gerretsen: Mr. Speaker, I will be the first to say that my opinion on things absolutely changes, given the context and the circumstances that the world is in, from time to time. As a matter of fact, I would even argue that this is the whole reason why we come to this room. All 343 of us come to this room not just to give speeches endlessly and then sit down or leave. Call me an idealist, but do we not come here with the whole point of trying to convince people of something? As such, from time to time, I will be the first to say that I will put myself in a position to say that maybe my position on something is wrong and maybe I should look at it differently. To be critical of that is to be critical of the entire democratic process, the entire reason why 343 of us come to this room. [Expand] Hon. Bardish Chagger (Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the reminder of how the Conservatives do tend to bring about their convenience. It is more like the “do as I say, not as I do” Conservative Party. We really do not necessarily know where they stand. Sometimes their own members are confused. I would like to hear from the member, just to bring the constituents of the riding of Waterloo up to speed, what we are debating today and perhaps what took place. [Expand] Hon. Mark Gerretsen: Mr. Speaker, we are debating an opposition motion that was kind of made moot as a result of what the government announced today. However, I will say to the member's point that, yes, Conservatives are continually changing how they feel about a particular issue based on the context that they happen to be in. The member will remember that when we had somebody cross the floor to the Conservatives, we never treated them the way the Conservatives treat everybody who crosses this way. [Translation ]

[Expand] Eric Lefebvre (Richmond—Arthabaska, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we are here today to discuss a Conservative proposal aimed at supporting Canadians in the face of the ongoing energy crisis in the Middle East. In short, we are proposing that the House call on the government to adopt the Conservative plan to save Canadians not 10¢, but 25¢ per litre by eliminating federal taxes on gasoline and diesel for the remainder of 2026. To support Canadians, we are calling on the government to take immediate, concrete and responsible action to put money back in the pockets of our youth, our families, our workers, our seniors and our industries. Our proposal includes four immediate tax-relief measures: (a) removing the Fuel Excise Tax for the remainder of 2026, which costs Canadians 10 cents-a-litre; (b) removing the GST on gasoline and diesel for the remainder of 2026, which costs Canadians 8 cents-a-litre; (c) permanently removing the Fuel Standards tax, which costs Canadians 7 cents-a-litre; and (d) permanently removing the industrial carbon tax, which will rise to $170 a tonne, and is projected to shrink the economy by 1.3 per cent and lead to 50,000 job losses. All told, this would allow Canadians to save around 25¢ per litre of gas, which means $20 every time a parent fills up the minivan, or more than $1,200 a year for a family. These are immediate steps the government can take to ease the pressure on our constituents. In addition, our plan will save businesses and workers around 21¢ per litre of diesel, providing relief in an already difficult economic climate. This will allow businesses to retain their employees and remain competitive. This will also help consumers, who will end up paying the price if nothing is done to curb rising fuel prices, which will force suppliers to raise their prices. This means higher grocery prices, higher housing costs, and higher fuel costs for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. After years of inflation, high taxes and rising costs, Canadians have tightened their belts enough. It is time for a change. It is time for this Liberal government to cut taxes in response to the current energy crisis. While gas prices have risen sharply across Canada and elsewhere in the world, the biggest winner right now is the government. It is estimated that there will be an exceptional, unanticipated and unbudgeted tax windfall of $9 billion in total. That is $9 billion that will swell the federal coffers. I unequivocally believe that these additional tax revenues should be returned to taxpayers, the people in our communities who work hard every day. That is why the Conservatives are calling on the Liberals to use $5 billion of the estimated $9 billion in additional revenue to eliminate all federal taxes on gasoline and diesel. To be clear, the federal government will collect more revenue from the higher oil prices than it would cost to suspend the fuel tax for the rest of the year. If it is going to make billions of dollars more from higher oil prices, the least it can do is give that money back to Canadian families and business owners. We saw that this morning. Once again, the Liberal government stole a Conservative proposal. However, according to the Conservatives' strong affordability plan, the government only came up with a half-measure, which is no surprise. If we look at the numbers, the Conservatives proposed to completely eliminate all federal fuel taxes. That measure would put 25¢ a litre back into the pockets of Canadians. The Liberals had every option but they chose to eliminate only the excise tax, which is a cut of 10¢ a litre. That is 15¢ a litre less than our proposal. The Liberal proposal is a cut of 10¢ a litre for four months, while we were proposing a cut of 25¢ a litre for the rest of this year. (1340) When it comes to diesel, the gap is even wider. Our proposal provides 21¢ in relief to the truckers and farmers who keep our economy running. Do not forget that farmers work 365 days a year and are on call 24 hours a day. Farmers are the ones who put breakfast, lunch and dinner on our plates. We need to give them the level of support that matches the responsibility they bear of feeding Canadians. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all farmers. A Conservative government will significantly reduce the diesel tax for farmers, as our proposal is 17¢ per litre lower than the government proposal. The government has deliberately chosen to keep Canadians' hard-earned money here in Ottawa. We called for these taxes to be eliminated until the end of the year to allow families of four to save approximately $1,200 per year. However, the Liberals chose to end this relief on September 7—four months earlier than in our plan. Canadians have a right to know that the Liberals have reduced the cost of fuel by only 10¢. The Liberals forgot to mention the reality at the pumps: Canadians are still paying 15¢ per litre for gas and 17¢ per litre for diesel in taxes alone. These taxes could be reduced to help ordinary folks get through this energy crisis. Some things are outside Canada's control. We cannot control the U.S President, what is happening in Iran or global energy prices. However, Canada has the power to shape its own destiny right here at home. That means removing internal trade barriers, cutting red tape and putting Canadians first. That said, the Liberal government had the full power to lower the cost of gas for Canadians, the full power to axe all the taxes it charges at the pumps and the full power to support Canadians and make life more affordable. To wrap up, I have many questions. Why will the Liberals not adopt our entire plan to axe all federal taxes on gas and diesel? Why will the Liberals not take action to help Canadians save 25¢ per litre of gas? Why will the Liberals not take action to help families of four save $1,200 by the end of this year? These are important questions that Canadians in my riding and across the country are asking day after day. (1345) [Expand] Steeve Lavoie (Beauport—Limoilou, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my colleague is wondering why we are not accepting their plan, yet I could ask him the same question. Why is he not voting in favour of affordability for our families? We need only consider dental care and how important it is in our regions. I see the number of people who registered in my riding. We even organized sign-up sessions. That is something practical. I went into politics to do practical things. Now, we have a real opportunity to do that. Talking and proposing things are all well and good, but when it comes time to vote for practical action, the opposition, unfortunately, is not on board. Does my colleague intend to join us in the future and vote for measures that help people in practical ways? [Expand] Eric Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, today's debate is on the opposition motion and concerns gas taxes, but my colleague is talking to me about the Liberal dental plan. What we are discussing today is the gas tax. The Liberal proposal is 10¢ for a short period of time. We are talking about eliminating all taxes, which amount to 25¢ per litre. That is money that goes directly into people's pockets. There is a significant increase in revenues right now. The Liberals owe it to Canadians to put that gas tax money back in their pockets. [Expand] Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette—Manawan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the motion's last two points. First, the Conservative Party estimates that eliminating clean fuel standards would save seven cents per litre, but the actual savings would be zero cents per litre. This is because the Conservative Party's numbers are based on old data from back when oil prices were much lower than they are now with the current crisis and price spikes that have put oil on par with biofuels. Their math is wrong, and this measure would be pointless. Second, the last point is about eliminating the industrial carbon tax. Does my colleague realize that this will lower the cost of gas at the pump by zero cents per litre because the price of crude oil is determined by the market? This would be a gift to oil companies that would not be passed on to consumers because the price of crude oil is determined internationally and prices are soaring, which means more profit. Foreign capital owns about 75% of the oil industry in the west, and their profits go overseas. Why go into debt for that? [Expand] Eric Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, once again, I appreciate the question from my colleague from the Bloc Québécois. Today, I am not here to debate how tax revenue is calculated. I am here for the people of Canada. Right now, Canadians are being suffocated. They are being bled dry. We have an opportunity here to help our farmers, our manufacturers, our families, and our seniors by significantly reducing taxes on gasoline and diesel. That is what the Conservative government is proposing. [English ]

[Expand] Sukhman Gill (Abbotsford—South Langley, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my question is very simple. The hon. member has been talking about his constituents and how they have been feeling the squeeze at the gas pumps. We see that the Liberals have adopted half of our plan. Could my colleague please elaborate on why they should have stolen the full idea of the Conservative plan that we were proposing, and not just half of it? (1350) [Translation ]

[Expand] Eric Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I would like thank my colleague. I quite like him and am lucky enough to play hockey with him. We were talking about half-measures just now. What the Liberal Party is proposing is a measure that will last four months, while what we are talking about would cover all of 2026. We cannot offer a half-measure for a few months and then reinstate the taxes. They are talking about 10¢ per litre, whereas our proposal is for 25¢ per litre. That is a significant difference. As we know, right now, the residents of my riding, those in my colleague's riding, and all of my colleagues' constituents are being fleeced. One way to help them would be to eliminate all taxes for the entire year of 2026 to demonstrate a genuine effort by the Canadian government to address their situation. [English ]

[Expand] Michael Guglielmin (Vaughan—Woodbridge, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is always a honour to rise on behalf of the amazing residents of Vaughan—Woodbridge to fight for a more affordable life. Speaking of affordable, I would like to take the opportunity to say that it is unfortunate that the Prime Minister put together a costly majority government, not through the ballot box but through politicians who betrayed their constituents and betrayed their principles, principles they ran on and sought public office on, principles they will be held to account for during the next election. We have been calling for relief at the pumps. Our motion today calls for the Prime Minister to adopt the Conservative plan to suspend all taxes on fuel until the end of the year. Earlier today, the Prime Minister confirmed once again that Conservatives have the solutions for Canada, but Liberals seem to want to introduce only half measures that will not deliver the full benefits to Canadians. This morning, the Prime Minister announced the suspension of the federal fuel excise tax on gas and diesel. The suspension takes effect on April 20 and runs until September 7. Any measure that reduces the cost of fuel for Canadians is a step in the right direction, but this is only one part of the four-part plan of our Conservative motion before the House today. Unfortunately the Liberal government and the Prime Minister missed three of the other points of our plan and are not removing tax until the end of the year as we have proposed. Conservatives have brought forward a plan to eliminate the fuel excise tax, the GST on tax and diesel, the industrial carbon tax and the clean fuel standard for the rest of 2026. This would cut costs by 25¢ a litre and save families, on average, $1,218 this year. This morning's announcement addresses 10¢ of that tax on gas, and only until September 7. A parent in my riding got up this morning, strapped their kids in their car and drove them to school. They then went to work. Before they did any of that, they stopped at the pump. One year ago, that fill-up cost them roughly $92 for a minivan. Last week, it cost them more than $127. Next week, it might be more. Over the years, deliberate policy choices the Liberal government has made built a tax structure on fuel that now squeezes Canadians every time they grip the nozzle. The Prime Minister says he wants to govern in a collaborative way, but the results are nonexistent. It is time for his rhetoric to match reality. It is an illusion that the Prime Minister will deliver on affordability, when he is out to remove only one tax, the fuel excise tax, and only from April 20 until Labour Day. The CAA's own price tracker tells the story plainly. Gas across Canada now averages more than $1.82 a litre, up from $1.32 a year ago and just $1.52 six short weeks ago. That is a 38% spike in the cost of getting to work, getting kids to school and getting food to market. For millions of Canadians who are already living paycheque to paycheque, this compounding crisis, layered on top of crises the government has created, is too much to bear. That is why we are here today to debate the motion. Conservatives have brought a specific plan to deliver immediate relief at the pump. We are calling on the government to adopt it. We need to provide immediate relief for families. Government members are going to rise today and tell us that this is about global oil markets. They will reference the Middle East. They will explain the Strait of Hormuz. We have heard the Prime Minister use at a press conference the exact same description I just referenced, saying it is beyond Canada's control and asking what we could possibly do. The global market explanation has one flaw that can be exposed with a single fact: Americans face the same global oil market, but Canadians pay almost 20% more at the pumps than the Americans do. It is the same disruption, yet when an American family pulls into a gas station, it pays dramatically less. The question that the House needs to be asking is why. The answer is that it is the federal Liberal tax policy. Americans do not pay the fuel excise tax on every litre. They do not pay the clean fuel standard. The hidden carbon tax, which the Parliamentary Budget Officer himself confirmed, costs Canadians seven cents per litre, with no rebate attached. Americans do not carry an industrial carbon tax that will rise to $170 a tonne. (1355) Here is a precise outline of what Canadians pay in addition to what Americans pay, in federal tax alone on every litre of gasoline: 10¢ a litre in fuel excise tax, which Conservatives are calling to be removed until the end of the year, not just until Labour Day; eight cents a litre in GST on gas and diesel; and seven cents a litre in the hidden carbon tax, with no rebate attached. That is 25¢ in additional costs per litre for all Canadians. On top of that, we have an industrial carbon tax already at $110 per tonne and rising to $170 per tonne. Therefore, when we talk about global markets' being the cause of rising prices, it is indeed an immediate factor, but there are deep-rooted factors caused by our federal government that we could take decisive action on and address today. There is another added dimension in the crisis the government hopes Canadians do not notice: The higher the price is on fuel, the more the government collects. According to a former Liberal top economic adviser, Tyler Meredith, every $10 increase in the price per barrel of oil brings roughly $2 billion in additional revenue for the federal government through the higher taxes paid by the oil industry from higher profits. For context, oil is currently trading at $45 to $55 above pre-war baselines. The federal government stands to collect $9 billion or $10 billion in additional annual revenue if these prices are sustained. These figures have been validated by independent economists, such as Scotiabank's director of forecasting and modelling, Olivier Gervais. The Conservative plan asks for $5 billion of that $9 billion windfall to be returned to Canadians, who generated it. Let us be clear: Conservatives are not asking the Liberals to spend money they do not have. We are asking them to return money they did not earn, which is money that flows directly to Ottawa precisely because Canadians are paying more at the pump. After years of Conservatives and Canadians from across the country pleading it do so, the government eliminated the consumer carbon tax, yet what the Liberals try to hide from the public is that two more taxes remain in place, and both of those taxes are growing. The clean fuel standard is silent. It is invisible on the price board at the pump, but that seven cents per litre is there every time we fill up our vehicle. Then there is the industrial carbon tax, currently at $110 per tonne and scheduled to rise again to $170 per tonne. The Liberals will tell us that this tax hits only industry, but the Canadian Federation of Independent Business tells us that nearly 70% of small businesses have seen their energy costs rise, and 32% of them already have raised their prices just to cover it. The Fraser Institute analysis found that the trajectory to $170 per tonne will cost the average Canadian worker $1,160 in lost annual income, eliminate 50,000 jobs and shrink our economy by 1.3%. All this is to say that Liberals can try to reduce the impact of this all they want, but businesses do not absorb taxes. Taxes flow through to the shelf, and consumers pay more. Every time a Liberal member rises in the House and suggests that the industrial carbon tax does not touch ordinary Canadians, they contradict the lived experience of every small business owner and every family who has watched their grocery bill rise and the price at the pumps go up. To reiterate, this four-point plan will be before the House— (1400) [Expand] The Speaker: I must interrupt the member so we can proceed to other business.

Statements by Members

[Statements by Members]

[English ]

Cost of Food

[Expand] Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canadians are being squeezed at the checkout counter like never before. Families are cutting back on essentials, skipping meals and struggling to afford groceries, while a handful of grocery giants continue to post massive profits. This is not a free market working for people. It is a system tilted in favour of corporate power, where Canadians pay more and get less. The cost of groceries is not just a household issue; it is a national affordability crisis, and it demands bold action. Under the leadership of Avi Lewis, New Democrats are ready to take on grocery price gouging head-on. That means tackling surveillance pricing, building real public options in food distribution, strengthening local and regional supply chains and supporting Canadian producers. We have done this before. From protecting farmland in B.C. to building public systems that put people first, the NDP knows that when we act in the public interest, we can lower costs and improve lives. It is time to take back control from grocery giants and put— [Expand] The Speaker: The hon. member for Eglinton—Lawrence.

Exchange-Traded Funds

[Expand] Vince Gasparro (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as a recovering banker, you will forgive me if I relapse for a moment. I want to recognize the Canadian ETF Association and the profound impact exchange-traded funds have had on investors globally. Canada gave the world one of its most important financial innovations: the exchange-traded fund. Born on the Toronto Stock Exchange, ETFs have fundamentally transformed how investors access capital markets by making investing more transparent, efficient and affordable. Today, ETFs employ 15,500 Canadians and manage more than $802 billion in assets. ETFs direct capital into Canadian businesses and infrastructure. They strengthen our capital markets and ensure that Canadians can build wealth with confidence. If we want to remain a global leader in financial innovation, we must continue to stay ahead of the Americans and others. I want to thank Prerna Matthews, Alex Perel, Eli Yufest and the Canadian ETF Association for their great work.

Tragedy at Lapu-Lapu Day Festival

[Expand] Chak Au (Richmond Centre—Marpole, CPC): Mr. Speaker, a year ago, a tragedy in Vancouver turned a joyful Lapu-Lapu festival into sorrow. As we approach this anniversary, the grief and trauma remain. For many families, the path to healing continues. Even in the midst of that pain, we saw the strength of a community coming together, a community with compassion, resilience and strength. Neighbours lifted up one another, strangers became family and Canadians across the country stood in solidarity. Last Sunday, I attended a community fundraiser supporting those still on the road to recovery. It was a reminder that as time passes, our support must not. As we honour those we lost, we stand with those still healing, together.

National Canadian Film Day

[Expand] Leslie Church (Toronto—St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this Wednesday, April 15, Canadians across the country will come together for National Canadian Film Day, a celebration of who we are and the stories we tell about ourselves. From classrooms to community centres, from libraries to living rooms, people will gather to watch Canadian films sitting side by side. More than 2,000 free screenings will take place across the country with over 200 films and millions more tuning in from home for stories that reflect our communities, stories that challenge us and stories that remind us who we are and what we share. I am especially proud of Sharon Corder and Jack Blum from Toronto—St. Paul's who co-founded Reel Canada, the organization behind National Canadian Film Day. Their vision has grown into something truly special: a celebration of Canada right across the country and the globe. Tomorrow and in the days to come, I hope Canadians take 90 minutes, give or take, to find a film, gather with others and celebrate the stories, the artists, the directors and the visionaries who bring us together.

Supervised Consumption Sites

[Expand] Roman Baber (York Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Olivia Chow and Toronto city council are building an injection site between a day care and a middle school in our beautiful neighbourhood of Downsview. It will be another Toronto homeless shelter that hands out pipes and needles. It will have a safe room where non-residents can get in, get a needle, inject themselves, leave and roam the neighbourhood. Toronto's homeless shelters have morphed into drug injection sites. Now Olivia Chow wants $700 million from the Liberal government to pay for the construction of 20 more of these shelters all around Toronto. Join me for a visit at Jane and Wilson near the Toronto Plaza shelter. It is an epicentre for drugs, crime and chaos. There are needles everywhere, drug trade and solicitation. The intersection is dead. Olivia wants to turn Jane and Wilson into Keele and Wilson using federal money, but we do not want Olivia's shelter harming our children and we do not want the Liberal government to fund the construction of these drug dens that bring crime and chaos to Toronto streets. Downsview residents do not consent to this shelter, and we will fight it tooth and nail. (1405) [Translation ]

Marc Bergeron

[Expand] Steeve Lavoie (Beauport—Limoilou, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of my constituents in Beauport—Limoilou. Marc Bergeron is a psychoeducator who coordinates the “1, 2, 3 Go! Limoilou” initiative. For the past 20 years, Mr. Bergeron has been driving around Limoilou in his little bus filled with activities, stopping at every park. Above all, he spreads happiness and pure joy. He gets lots of attention everywhere he goes, making people smile, making people laugh and bringing people together. He simply creates beautiful, happy moments for people of all ages. Over the years, his bus has become a true gathering place and a landmark for many families. His dedication reminds us that it is the small, everyday acts that make our neighbourhoods more welcoming and more vibrant. As he prepares to begin his well-deserved retirement, I want to acknowledge his significant contribution to our community. I want to thank Mr. Bergeron. [English ]

Tragic Event in Sarnia

[Expand] Lianne Rood (Middlesex—London, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am deeply troubled by the profound tragedy that occurred Sunday at Sarnia's Lambton College campus. My heart goes out to his family and all who knew 20-year-old Dane Nisbet, a promising young former junior hockey player who was taken far too soon, and also to the two others who were injured. This senseless and unnecessary act of violence has shaken the community. We all know it could have been prevented. The primary suspect was already under a court order prohibiting him from possessing firearms and has a rap sheet a mile long. He was arrested in March for assault with a weapon and failure to comply. Last May, he was arrested on two counts of assault with a weapon and a breach of order, and he was previously charged with assaulting an elderly man. This guy should never have been on the streets. It is absolutely insane how he was not in jail. Who bears the responsibility for this? It is the Liberal catch-and-release bail policies that continue to place dangerous offenders back on our streets instead of keeping them behind bars. We must fix these failed policies now to protect innocent lives. Canadians deserve safer— [Expand] The Speaker: The hon. member for Humber River—Black Creek.

Iran

[Expand] Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in response to deeply troubling reports of executions and repression in Iran, including the execution of six political dissidents by the regime in recent weeks. In addition to this political repression is the escalation of the obsessive, systemic and ongoing persecution and scapegoating of the Iranian Baha’i religious community. As an example, Borna and Peyvand Naimi, two Baha’i cousins, targeted for their religious faith, remain detained, and have been reportedly tortured and, like others, coerced into false confessions. Targeting people for their religious beliefs is a grave violation of worldwide human rights. Canada must continue to condemn these abuses, work with allies and press for accountability. Iranians deserve dignity, justice and freedom from fear.

Property Rights

[Expand] Marc Dalton (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians are under immense economic strain, and now the Liberal government has jeopardized the very foundation of home ownership. The Cowichan decision and secret Musqueam agreement have cast a dark shadow over private property rights. By failing to defend fee simple ownership in court and dropping key legal arguments, the government has sparked fear and financial chaos. Appraisers are warning that affected property values could plunge 40%. Financing is drying up and projects are already being cancelled. This is a massive failure of leadership. Conservatives are calling on the Prime Minister to reinstate a strong legal defence of private property, ensure all agreements unmistakably protect ownership, deliver a clear plan within 30 days and immediately convene a parliamentary committee. Canadians deserve certainty and security, not empty words. The government must protect Canadian homes and restore confidence now. (1410) [Translation ]

Claude Frappier

[Expand] Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on April 4, the community of Saint‑Paulin said goodbye to one of its leading citizens, Claude Frappier. First elected to council in 2004, his dedication to the common good motivated him to take on the position of acting mayor in November 2020. Re-elected as mayor on 2021, he discharged his duties with unprecedented diligence, determination and dedication until illness forced him to step away from the position. Everyone admired Mr. Frappier. Always attentive to the needs of others, open-minded and generous, he will long be remembered by the people of the RCM of Maskinongé, as evidenced by the impressive number of people who came to pay their respects on April 4. Mr. Frappier was a model of engagement and devotion to the betterment of his community, and I am grateful to him.

Agriculture and Food in Compton—Stanstead.

[Expand] Marianne Dandurand (Compton—Stanstead, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, agriculture and food are at the heart of my region's identity. Committed men and women are showcasing our farm-to-table expertise. One example is Karine Vachon and Jean‑François Bolduc of JF Bolduc farm. For 25 years, they have innovated, improved their practices and contributed to more sustainable agriculture. Their work was recently recognized by the Réseau des fermes durables de l'Estrie. The excellence of the Eastern Townships extends to our plates. My region has three finalists at the Lauriers de la gastronomie québécoise, whose awards ceremony will be held on May 4. The Routier-Bolduc family from the La Station cheese factory is one of the finalists in the artisan of the year category. The Manoir Hovey is also in the running with Alexandre Vachon, finalist for chef of the year, and Joanie Métivier, finalist for sommelier of the year. We must continue to support and promote this farm-to-table expertise. [English ]

Gas Prices

[Expand] Kelly Block (Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, CPC): Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister continues to make big promises, Canadians continue to struggle. The truth of the matter is that he is an illusionist. Canadians are paying 35% more due to rising global oil prices, and Liberal taxes are making it even worse, forcing them to pay almost 20% more than Americans. Not only is the Prime Minister late to the game at announcing relief at the pumps, it is an illusion that he will actually deliver on affordability when he is only pausing the fuel excise tax from April 20 until Labour Day. Conservatives have brought forward a plan to eliminate the fuel excise tax, the GST on gas and diesel, the industrial carbon tax and the clean fuel standard for the rest of the year. It is a plan that would cut costs at the pump by 25¢ per litre, saving a family of four $1,200 this year. Canadians deserve affordable fuel and food. Conservatives will continue to fight the cost of living crisis, restore economic growth and make life affordable again.

Cervical Cancer

[Expand] Hon. Helena Jaczek (Markham—Stouffville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Society of Gynecologic Oncology of Canada says we are in a national silent health crisis. Cervical cancer has become the fastest rising form of cancer in Canada. Last year an estimated 1,650 Canadian women were diagnosed with cervical cancer, and 430 will die from the disease. Cervical cancer had been in decline for decades, but in recent years, rates have been on the rise. This is a disease that is almost entirely preventable through human papillomavirus vaccination, easily diagnosed through cervical screening and highly curable when treated early. Last July, our government released an action plan to eliminate cervical cancer by 2040. During this April, Cancer Prevention and Early Detection Month, Canadian women need to know that HPV vaccination and cervical screening can save lives.

Gas Prices

[Expand] Grant Jackson (Brandon—Souris, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadian gas prices have soared and the time for action is now. Unsurprisingly, the Liberals have only just stumbled out of the gate. Conservatives have presented a plan with real solutions for Canadians amidst an affordability crisis that Liberals created. Here is the solution: Cut four costly Liberal gas taxes. Our plan would halt the fuel excise tax and the GST until the end of 2026 and permanently remove the fuel standards tax and the industrial carbon tax. These taxes cost Canadians an extra 25¢ a litre on gas and 21¢ a litre on diesel. Cutting taxes would keep that money in Canadians' pockets. This morning, the Liberals attempted to poach this plan but, true to form, they did not even copy and paste correctly. By pausing only the fuel excise tax and only until September, the Liberals have acknowledged that cutting taxes is the answer, but their half-measure plan would save far less than our Conservative plan would. Will the Liberals admit their mistake this afternoon and implement our full plan today to promote real relief for Canadian families? (1415)

National Defence

[Expand] Mike Kelloway (Sydney—Glace Bay, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have good news. Canada has reached the NATO 2% defence spending target half a decade ahead of schedule and with the largest year-over-year increase for our defence budget in generations. This is a proud moment, and I want to congratulate the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence for their leadership in making it happen. This is more than a number. It is a signal to the world that Canada is serious about defending what we have built and protecting what we value. Cape Breton knows this very well, because Sydney has been selected as the preferred home for Canada's next generation of polar ice vessels. This is bringing jobs, strengthening our Arctic sovereignty and putting our community at the centre of the defence renewal. We are rebuilding and we are rearming, and in a world that is watching, Canada once again will lead the way.

Fuel Taxes

[Expand] Jasraj Hallan (Calgary East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, no one is surprised the Liberal Prime Minister stole another Conservative idea, but like a typical Liberal, he only took a part of it. The Prime Minister said he was looking for solutions. We put one right in front of him. Conservatives are calling for all federal fuel taxes to be removed for the rest of this year, including the excise tax, the GST, the Liberal fuel standard and the industrial carbon tax. Canadians would save 25¢ per litre at the pump, and families would save $1,200 just this year. Instead, the Liberals announced a half-measure and kept all the Liberal fuel taxes in place that are driving up the cost of gas, groceries and transportation. Canadians are paying 20¢ more per litre than the Americans, and the difference is federal Liberal fuel taxes. Today, Conservatives brought a motion forward to remove all federal taxes for the rest of the year for Canadians. If the Prime Minister is going to steal our ideas, he should at least be willing to steal them whole.

Federal By-elections

[Expand] James Maloney (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last night Canadians made a big decision in University—Rosedale, Scarborough Southwest and Terrebonne by putting their trust in this new government's plan and our Prime Minister. To everyone who put their name on the ballot, I want to say thanks. Our democracy is better off for their participation. I would like to congratulate our new colleagues Danielle Martin and Doly Begum, and of course welcome back our colleague Tatiana Auguste. This government has a clear mandate to continue taking action on the important issues that matter most to Canadians, and with these three newly elected colleagues and under the leadership of our Prime Minister, we will do just that.

Oral Questions

[Oral Questions]

[English ]

Taxation

[Expand] Hon. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC): Mr. Speaker, after weeks of Conservative pressure, the Liberals finally admitted that their high fuel taxes are hammering Canadians at the pumps, but, in typical Liberal fashion, this Prime Minister has proven to be just another Liberal, keeping more windfall taxes for government than for providing relief for Canadians. The Liberal announcement today is simply not good enough. It is going to provide only a third of the relief for a third of the year. The Conservative plan is to scrap 100% of federal fuel taxes for the entire rest of the year. If the Liberals are going to admit that the Conservatives were right all along, why not just go all the way and adopt our full plan? [Expand] Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Finance and National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know it is Tuesday. There is so much good news that I do not know where to start. I really do not know. Just look at their faces. They should be smiling. The International Monetary Fund just announced that Canada is forecasted to have the second-fastest growth in the G7. In addition, we are suspending the federal fuel excise tax on gasoline from April 20 until Labour Day. Every day is a good day to— (1420) [Expand] The Speaker: The hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. [Expand] Hon. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC): Mr. Speaker, good times are almost here, just a little over the horizon, but right now there are no smiles on motorists' faces, because they were expecting 100% relief at the pumps. Under the Liberal government's plan, the government will still continue to collect windfall taxes, and hard-working Canadians will have to pay more at the pumps. The Liberal government is keeping the GST on fuel and the fuel standard tax, which alone adds seven cents a litre. It is providing only a third of the relief for a third of the year. We do not give a pharmacist a high-five when he gives us only one third of our prescription. Why not just go all the way and reduce, scrap and eliminate 100% of fuel taxes for the— [Expand] The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. [Expand] Hon. Tim Hodgson (Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, unlike the opposition members, who do not have a plan, we have a plan. We have reduced the price of gasoline by 28¢ a litre since we became the government. We are reducing taxes for Canadians. We are reducing GST for Canadians. We are reducing development charges on homes, which, in my riding, is saving $200,000 a home. That is how one deals with affordability. [Translation ]

[Expand] Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC): Mr. Speaker, while Canadians are struggling to pay for groceries, the Liberal government is once again proposing half measures. The Prime Minister 's announcement only deals with a fraction of the fuel taxes and only for a few months. It is a measure that would reduce the cost of gasoline by as little as 10¢ a litre. Meanwhile, prices at the pump continue to skyrocket. Canadians are already paying far more than their American neighbours. Why are the same old Liberals refusing to offer real relief to Canadian families? [Expand] Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Finance and National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is only Tuesday and we already have so much good news that I do not even know where to begin. This morning, the International Monetary Fund reported that Canada will have the second-fastest growth in the G7. We are also announcing the suspension of the federal excise tax on gasoline and diesel. This measure will leave $2.4 billion in Canadians' pockets. That is great news for motorists, great news for consumers and great news for Canada and affordability. [Expand] Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the truly good news will come when this government decides to take all of our advice. For three years, we have been asking them to eliminate the carbon tax; they did it. Now we are asking them to remove all taxes on gasoline: GST, excise tax and clean fuel surcharges included. Is the government ready to go the extra mile to help Canadians who face the harsh daily reality of paying too much for everything? [Expand] Hon. Joël Lightbound (Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement and Quebec Lieutenant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the announcement made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance. It will put $2.4 billion back into the pockets of Canadians to help with the cost of living. However, we are not stopping there. We have cut taxes for 22 million Canadians, and then there is the Canada child benefit, the Canada dental plan and the grocery benefit. There are so many measures that I am having a hard time naming them all. These are all measures the Conservatives voted against. They are in no position to lecture us when it comes to the help we are providing Canadians to cope with the cost of living. [English ]

[Expand] John Barlow (Foothills, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal gas price change amounts to what is really chump change. It is only for a third of the year, for a third of the tax. It is not relief when Canadians barely save 10¢ a litre on gas and four cents a litre on diesel. It is not relief when Canadians still have to pay the GST and the Liberal fuel tax. Canadians are going to get back pennies. Meanwhile, the Liberals are collecting billions of dollars in federal gas tax revenue. Why the half-measure? Why not adopt the Conservative plan to remove all the Liberal taxes on fuel, diesel and gas? [Expand] Hon. Steven MacKinnon (Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in addition to all this good news, I want to highlight one additional measure the Prime Minister and my colleagues announced today, and that is that Canadians are going to find it less expensive to get out and travel around the country this summer, because we are lowering the excise tax on jet fuel. We are going to reduce the cost of domestic flights. We will even go visit the member in Foothills. Get out and enjoy Canada. Vive le Canada. (1425) [Expand] John Barlow (Foothills, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is incredible how the Liberals can twist themselves in pretzels. It was not that long ago they were accusing all Conservatives of taking a summer vacation while the planet burned, and now they are saying we can travel around the world. It is not a benefit when the Liberals are pocketing billions of dollars in gas tax revenue right from the pockets of Canadians who are struggling just to buy the basics. Why do the Liberals take these half measures? Why do they not follow a Conservative policy and eliminate all of the Liberal taxes on fuel so Canadians can afford that summer vacation we would all love to take? [Expand] Hon. Heath MacDonald (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the reality is that global instability has created an atmosphere where we had to react, and we are reacting. I credit the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance for coming forward with this. I hear from the farmers on the front line every other day that they are concerned about the crop they are going to put in. It is the second-fastest growing economy. That is a contribution from our farmers. It is 28¢ less a litre since this new government has been put in place, and $2.4 billion back in the pockets of Canadians. It is a good day. [Translation ]

News Media Industry

[Expand] Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, regional news is in jeopardy, and this is even more true for regional news in French, which is why the independent local news fund, or ILNF, is so important. Ever since the CRTC allowed 15 English-language stations from the Corus group into the fund, the share of funding going to French-language media has plummeted. The only two eligible French-language groups have lost nearly half of their funding, which has dropped from 26% to 14%. Obviously, the solution is for GAFAM to contribute to media funding, but first, regional news in French must survive. Will the government increase the fund? [Expand] Hon. Marc Miller (Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we know that thanks to the fund, several regional French-language media outlets receive federal funding specifically to provide information in French. Yes, we are considering all the options in a landscape where these platforms and these broadcasters are under threat from the larger platforms. [Expand] Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have no problem with funding going to English-language regional news outlets, but it should not come out of French-language media outlets' funding. If outlets are added to the independent local news fund, money should also be added. We would obviously not have this problem if the Prime Minister had not abolished the digital services tax. The government could have provided decent funding for all our media outlets through the web giants' fair share. Since the Prime Minister is depriving our media outlets of this revenue, will he top up the fund? [Expand] Hon. Marc Miller (Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said in my previous answer, we are considering several options. [Expand] Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, by adding 15 English-language Global stations to the ILNF without funding from the web giants, the government is robbing Peter to pay Paul. The result is that 86% of the ILNF money is going to English-language media, and it is the independent regional French-language media outlets that are paying the price. Let us be realistic. There is no long-term solution without contributions from the web giants, but there is no point if there are no media outlets left to save. The government has to temporarily replenish the ILNF and extend its journalism labour tax credit to include electronic media, like Quebec has done. When is that going to happen? [Expand] Hon. Marc Miller (Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that question reveals the true nature of the Bloc Québécois, which is always trying to pit the English-language media against the French-language media. I think we can fund both at the same time. [English ]

Taxation

[Expand] Scot Davidson (New Tecumseth—Gwillimbury, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this Prime Minister 's temporary, half measures on fuel prices show he is more focused on increasing government revenues than offering real relief to Canadians at the pump. The Liberals will rake in up to $10 billion more in taxes, while Canadians will save just 10¢ a litre. Here we go again: Billions for this Liberal government, but pennies for Canadians. Why should soccer moms, seniors and young people pay the price at the pump for this Prime Minister 's overspending? [Expand] Hon. Tim Hodgson (Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me help my friend on the other side of the aisle. We have cut taxes by 28¢ a litre since this new government came into office. We have cut income taxes. We have cut GST. We have cut the cost of a home in Markham—Thornhill, my riding, by $200,000 in total. That is what affordability looks like. (1430) [Expand] Scot Davidson (New Tecumseth—Gwillimbury, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this announcement will barely move the needle for Canadians drowning in credit card debt just to fill up. Instead of adopting the Conservative plan to eliminate all taxes on fuel and save Canadian families $1,218 until 2027, the Liberals' half-baked plan will only save families 10¢ a litre for a couple of months. No one has a monopoly on good ideas. Why is this Prime Minister refusing to listen to Conservatives, and offer real relief to Canadians at the pump? [Expand] Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Finance and National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would agree with my colleague, and he is a man of good heart. Clearly, the Conservatives do not have the monopoly on good ideas. That I can confirm, that is for sure. What I can say is that I know in his heart, he knows that the measure will save Canadians $2.4 billion. That is a responsible measure to take. It is a significant boost to families, soccer moms and people who are in the logistics business. It is going to help our farmers, fishermen and all Canadians at this time of need. To the people at home, we have always been there for them, and we will continue to fight for them every single day. [Expand] Hon. Rob Moore (Fundy Royal, CPC): Mr. Speaker, once again, the Liberals have shown Canadians that the best solution for taxpayers is found in the Conservative Party of Canada. Instead of committing to real relief at the pumps for the rest of the year, this Prime Minister announced a short-term pause that only affects one-third of his government's taxes on fuel for only one-third of the year. He is still refusing to pause the GST on gas and diesel, the industrial carbon tax and the clean fuel standard. Why do the Liberals insist on part measures instead of adopting our Conservative plan to remove all federal taxes on gas and diesel to save Canadians 25¢ a litre for the rest of the year? [Expand] Hon. Wayne Long (Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, while that leader continues his podcast tour, on this side of the House we are going to continue to focus on affordability for Canadians. Just this morning our Prime Minister announced a pause to the federal excise tax of 10¢ a litre. Combining that with the cut in the consumer carbon tax, that is 28¢ a litre in savings that goes back into Canadians' pockets. On this side of the House, we are going to continue to focus on affordability. We are going to continue to deliver that for Canadians. [Expand] Hon. Rob Moore (Fundy Royal, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is too generous to call the Liberals' latest proposal announced today even a half measure. People are suffering under the increased fuel costs and increased fuel taxes, yet the government has decided that it will continue to reap a massive GST windfall on the backs of overtaxed Canadians. By fully committing to our plan, a family of four would save more than $1,200 just this year. Will the Liberals do the right thing and adopt our plan to save 25¢ a litre by cutting all federal fuel taxes for Canadian drivers for the rest of this year? [Expand] Hon. Patty Hajdu (Minister of Jobs and Families and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, here is the thing: Liberals can focus on two things at one time— [Expand] The Speaker: The hon. minister may start from the top. [Expand] Hon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Speaker, here is the thing— [Expand] The Speaker: The translation is working now. The hon. minister may start from the top. [Expand] Hon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Speaker, the third time is the charm. Here is the thing: We can focus on two things at the same time. We can help families with urgent cost relief right now, which we are doing by eliminating the fuel excise tax, but what we can also do, and this is the part Conservatives do not get, is help with long-term sustainable affordability. That is where things like affordable child care come in, or removing the HST from new homes, or making sure that there are school food programs, or ensuring that the Canada child benefit is there for families. We want to be there for families now when the crisis is urgent, but also in the long term. That is the kind of stuff the Conservatives vote against every time. [Expand] Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Conservatives have brought forward a plan to eliminate the gas tax, the GST on gas and diesel, the industrial carbon tax and the fuel standard tax for the rest of 2026. That would cut costs at the pump by 25¢ per litre and save a family of four up to $1,200 this year. Why is the Liberal Prime Minister shortchanging Canadian families and not cutting all taxes for the whole year? (1435) [Expand] Hon. Buckley Belanger (Secretary of State (Rural Development), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said from time to time, the Conservatives across the way have been here for 10 years. I have been here for 10 months, and guess what? I get to announce the tax break for the farming community in Saskatchewan. It was done within that 10-month time frame. [Expand] Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have known that member for a very long time. I have made a career out of cleaning up his messes. He and the NDP destroyed Saskatchewan for 16 years, and now he has come here to be one of the Liberals destroying the economy of Canada. Once again, after he finishes ruining the economy for Canadians, we will clean up his mess for all Canadians so they can get ahead. [Expand] Hon. Buckley Belanger (Secretary of State (Rural Development), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member is correct; I have watched his underperformance in the provincial assembly in Saskatchewan. Now, I am watching the collective underperformance of all 13 of the Saskatchewan Conservative MPs. Let me remind folks today that we are announcing uranium development in northern Saskatchewan. This week, I was at SUMA announcing waste water and sewer projects, and water projects for three cities. This government is on the move, and as I mentioned before, that is great news. We are just getting started. [Expand] Helena Konanz (Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today, the Liberals announced they are adopting a third of our gas relief plan for just a third of the year, but residents in the Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay do not just drive for the summer. Our plan would take excise, GST and fuel standard taxes off gas and diesel for the rest of 2026. That would cut costs at the pump by 25¢ per litre, saving $1,200 for a family of four. Will the Liberals end the tax grab and save Canadians 25¢ a litre? [Expand] Hon. Jill McKnight (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, British Columbians are happy to hear that we are investing in them and that we are addressing affordability for them. They are happy to hear that we are making a reduction in fuel costs from now until Labour Day. British Columbians are going to use that to go and enjoy our country as they can this summer. Maybe they will also combine that with the Canada Strong pass as they go and explore this wonderful country. [Translation ]

Employment Insurance

[Expand] Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Every year, seasonal workers fall victim to the EI spring gap, which is when workers in fisheries, forestry, tourism and many other sectors go without income for weeks. For over 10 years, the Liberals have been promising comprehensive EI reform, and they will need to keep their promise, but seasonal workers need 15 more weeks per year right now. When will the Liberals fix the EI spring gap once and for all? [Expand] Hon. Patty Hajdu (Minister of Jobs and Families and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, employment insurance is very important for all workers in this country. That is why we improved the program and added measures for workers facing real hardships. [English ]

It is why we have added measures to ensure that workers who are facing hard times get what they deserve as fast as they can and ensure that they have the weeks they need to stay financially viable. [Translation ]

[Expand] Marilène Gill (Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, seasonal workers are not asking for the moon. The Interprovincial Employment Insurance Alliance calculated that it would cost one penny per $100 of wages to eliminate the spring gap forever. It would cost a single penny. The federal government needs to understand that, while work is seasonal in the regions, the workers are permanent. They are the ones who keep regional economies going. They need 15 more weeks every year. Will the government finally fill the EI spring gap once and for all? (1440) [Expand] Hon. Patty Hajdu (Minister of Jobs and Families and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, workers in Canada must have confidence in our EI system. That is why we added measures to support workers across the country. I want to work with my colleague to come up with other ideas to help workers.

Taxation

[Expand] Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière, CPC): Mr. Speaker, once again, the Liberal Prime Minister is confirming that the Conservatives are the ones with real solutions, that this government has not changed and that it is incapable of solving anything. The Liberals are offering mere crumbs. Their announcement affects only one-third of fuel taxes for one-third of the year. Meanwhile, they will continue to pocket $10 billion a year from drivers. The real solution is to abolish all gasoline taxes. Why, after 10 years, are the Liberals not even capable of doing things right, not even halfway? [Expand] Hon. Nathalie Provost (Secretary of State (Nature), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are working to boost Canadians' purchasing power in every way we can. We are not just doing one thing; we are doing many things. We can walk, chew gum, talk to friends on the phone—we can do lots of things at the same time. We are working on the economy. Today's employment data shows that our economic growth is being recognized. We have reduced the gas tax. We also have a host of programs that will help Canadians get through this difficult crisis. [Expand] Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are acknowledging that we are in a difficult crisis. Well, they have been in power for over 10 years, so who put Canada in this position? It was the Liberal government, a government that has not changed, that has remained the same for the past 10 years. The Liberals claim to be doing something, but it is very little. They are copying Conservative ideas, but not all of them, just some, leaving people to struggle on weekends to pay for groceries, to pay to fill up their gas tanks to get to the grocery store, go to school or get to work. Once a Liberal, always a Liberal. Why is this Liberal Prime Minister keeping more in his pockets than he is giving back to Canadians? [Expand] Hon. Rachel Bendayan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we know that Canadians are struggling right now. The Conservatives' approach since last summer has been to filibuster in the House. We are trying to move forward. This very day, we proposed a new, targeted measure to support Canadians and help consumers weather sticker shock at the pumps. This will help them directly by putting money back in their pockets. [Expand] Dominique Vien (Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, CPC): Mr. Speaker, all we are seeing at this point is Liberal smoke and mirrors. The Prime Minister is offering nothing more than peanuts. Canadians will save just 10¢ a litre, while he is going to rake in nearly $10 billion, taken from Canadians' pockets. Why will the government not implement the Conservative Party's plan to eliminate the GST on gasoline and diesel, the industrial carbon tax and the fuel standard? It would be so simple. Plus, it would help people. [Expand] Hon. Joël Lightbound (Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement and Quebec Lieutenant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it would be so simple and it would help people, like the 26,537 residents in her riding who have access to the Canadian dental care plan. It would be so simple for the member to support that program. It would be so simple for her to support the Canada child benefit, which allocates $67 million a year to 10,000 families in her riding. When the member says “peanuts”, she is talking about $2.4 billion going back to Canadians because we are eliminating the excise tax on gasoline. That is not peanuts. That is significant. [Expand] Dominique Vien (Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, CPC): Mr. Speaker, what I also find odd is that Canadians already pay about 20% more for gas than Americans do, while the Liberals are proposing partial relief that will cover barely a third of taxes for a third of the year. What we in the Conservative Party propose is that the Liberals keep co-opting the Conservative Party platform, but in its entirety, instead of just half of it. Then we would agree with them. [Expand] Hon. Joël Lightbound (Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement and Quebec Lieutenant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the fact that we eliminated the carbon tax, which lowered the price of gas in this country by 28¢ a litre. I also find it ironic that the member opposite was part of the Quebec government that put a price on pollution with its cap-and-trade system. That is peak irony. (1445) [Expand] Jacques Gourde (Lévis—Lotbinière, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the measures announced this morning by the Liberal government are too little too late in the face of the magnitude of the cost of living crisis in Canada. The price of diesel today is $2.75 a litre. The announced tax cut of four cents a litre changes nothing for our truckers. The Liberal government is still charging eight cents a litre in GST and seven cents a litre for the clean fuel regulations. Canadians are paying 20% more for gas than Americans. Will the Liberal government stop patting itself on the back and start working for all Canadians? [Expand] Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Finance and National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, like the people watching us on TV, I must give the member an A in theatre but perhaps a C in math. The fact is that we are leaving $2.4 billion in the pockets of truckers. I look forward to seeing the people of Saint‑Nicolas and Lévis. I hope he will put this video on his platforms to inform all truckers in the Quebec City region that we are there for them and that we understand that lowering the price of diesel will also help with food costs. We know that the price of diesel has an impact on logistics. We will continue fighting for Canadians every single day. [English ]

The Economy

[Expand] Braedon Clark (Sackville—Bedford—Preston, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, over the past year, Canadians have navigated a rapidly changing and increasingly fragmented world, one that is more complex, more volatile and more unpredictable. In this environment, Canadians have done what they have always done. We have rolled up our sleeves, looked out for one another and adapted. This work belongs to all of us. This is Canada's moment to build together. Last night, the good people of Scarborough Southwest, University—Rosedale and Terrebonne placed their faith in this plan. Could the Minister of Finance please update the House on the next steps in our plan to build a strong and resilient Canadian economy and give us a— [Expand] The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Finance. [Expand] Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Finance and National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, budget 2025 presented generational investments in housing, infrastructure, productivity, innovation and our defence. It is our plan to grow the strongest economy in the G7. I will have the pleasure of presenting the spring economic update on April 28 to the House. This is going to be a plan that is going to help families. It is going to help our industry. It is going to help our nation prosper and to bring good news to Canadians across the nation.

Indigenous Affairs

[Expand] Jamie Schmale (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians are facing rising costs, economic uncertainty and housing challenges. The Cowichan ruling in British Columbia is now adding a new layer of doubt about whether homes in the city of Richmond are truly secure. Home ownership is the foundation of financial stability for millions of Canadians, yet the Liberals have failed to clearly defend it in court. Will the Prime Minister instruct his lawyers to unequivocally argue that the private property rights of Canadian homeowners must come first and finally provide the certainty Canadians demand? [Expand] Hon. Rebecca Alty (Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me be clear that Canadians can still buy, sell, inherit and renovate their homes under provincial and municipal law. We disagreed with the Cowichan ruling and appealed it on September 8, 2025. We believe that the Cowichan decision requires legal clarity. That is why the government will pursue all legal options through the appeal process. We will protect private property owners and uphold the Constitution without fearmongering. [Expand] Jamie Schmale (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the government filed its appeal at the last second, but here is the thing: In 2018, the government instructed its lawyers to not make the argument that fee simple property is supreme while the case was in the lower courts. Unfortunately for the property owners involved, the government cannot mount an appeal with an argument that it did not make originally. I ask the minister to please help Canadians and all of us understand how the government intends to win a court case with an argument it cannot make. [Expand] Hon. Rebecca Alty (Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again, we are appealing the Cowichan ruling, and we will be pursuing all legal options. (1450) [Expand] Chak Au (Richmond Centre—Marpole, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government avoids the question, hiding behind appeals and technical definitions instead of stating a clear and substantive position. This is pattern. In court and in backroom agreements, the Liberals refuse to say whether they will stand up for Canadian homeowners. Canadians deserve certainty. Will the Prime Minister direct lawyers to argue that the private property rights of Canadian homeowners must come first, yes or no? [Translation ]

[Expand] Hon. Rebecca Alty (Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. Canadians can still buy, sell, inherit and renovate their homes under provincial and municipal law. We disagree with the Cowichan ruling, which we appealed on September 8, 2025. We believe that this decision requires legal clarity. That is why the government will pursue all legal options through the appeal process. We will protect property rights and uphold the Constitution. [English ]

[Expand] Chak Au (Richmond Centre—Marpole, CPC): Mr. Speaker, appealing the decision is not the question. The government still has not said whether it is arguing that Canadian homeowners' private property rights come first. I will keep asking this question until there is a clear answer. Will the Liberals make that position clear in court and in all future agreements, yes or no? [Expand] Hon. Sean Fraser (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has asked us to state the position of the Government of Canada clearly. We disagree with the decision of the Supreme Court of British Columbia. We have decided to appeal that decision in order to pursue a different outcome. At trial we defended fee simple, and we believe that more clarity is needed, particularly on the issue of private property rights. These debates are legal debates. The appropriate forum for them to take place is through the appeal process, not on the floor of the House of Commons. [Expand] Ellis Ross (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Cowichan ruling has created uncertainty for homeowners and first nations in B.C., calling into question whether private property rights are secure. Canadians are already struggling with affordability. They should not have to wonder whether or not they own their own homes. Cowichan themselves said that they did not seek to invalidate private property ownership. Will the Prime Minister direct his lawyers to thoroughly argue in court that the private property rights of Canadian homeowners must be a priority as well? [Expand] Hon. Rebecca Alty (Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have told the House, we are appealing the decision, but what I would like to point out is that courts are one way of settling the aboriginal title and negotiations are another. This is what we have done in that member's jurisdiction. We have been working with the Government of British Columbia as well as the Haida Nation. It has been two years since the Haida title agreement has been in place in the province of British Columbia. The sky has not fallen. Private property is protected under the Haida agreement. [Expand] Ellis Ross (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this could have been avoided. The Liberal government's secret approach to agreements, such as the Musqueam rights recognition agreement, without transparency or clear protections for private property, has added to the anxiety private property owners are already experiencing. The consequences are uncertainty, stalled sales and the potential to derail previous reconciliation efforts. Will the Prime Minister commit today that no future agreements will be signed unless they explicitly protect and prioritize the private property rights of Canadian homeowners? [Expand] Hon. Gregor Robertson (Minister of Housing and Infrastructure and Minister responsible for Pacific Economic Development Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. This band of Conservatives is what is sowing dissent and anxiety in Canada. The government is being crystal clear. We support— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! [Expand] The Speaker: I did not really hear all the words there, but it was an interruption, so the minister may start from the top. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! The Speaker: He might have to start from the top again if the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola continues. The hon. minister has the floor. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! The Speaker: I think it is the hon. member for Lakeland. The hon. member will— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! The Speaker: Let us just all take a moment. We do not have the required silence. Unfortunately, I cannot hear all the banter, so I do not know who is to blame, or who was first, and all of that. Let us have some quiet so the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure can start from the top and answer this very important question on this very important issue. (1455) [Expand] Hon. Gregor Robertson: Mr. Speaker, I will reinforce the concerns this side of the House has about the anxiety and fearmongering the Conservatives are pushing on this issue. This is a very serious issue. The government supports the appeal. The government supports the rights of private property owners. The government supports reconciliation. We will pursue the course of action of appealing the superior court decision in B.C. We will see justice and clarity on this. We do not need the politics being played by the Conservatives to make this worse for Canadians. [Expand] Brad Vis (Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, CPC): Mr. Speaker, what I am seeing today from the government is a government pursuing a policy of confusion that has the whole province of British Columbia upset. Earlier today in question period, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations said that the government will pursue all legal options. Can the minister clarify for British Columbians whether that includes an argument to protect the private property rights of the British Columbians impacted by the Cowichan decision, yes or no? I would like a straight answer, in good faith. [Expand] Hon. Jill McKnight (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada disagrees with the B.C. Supreme Court's ruling, and we appealed it on September 8. We are committed to maintaining legal clarity and stability for private land ownership. Further legal clarity is required to address the decision, particularly as it relates to private property rights. [Expand] Sukhman Gill (Abbotsford—South Langley, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Cowichan ruling has raised very real concerns about the security of property rights in Canada. At a time of high costs and economic uncertainty, Canadians should not be questioning the ownership of their homes. The Liberals negotiated the Musqueam agreement in secret, with no transparency, leaving homeowners unable to sell and builders unwilling to invest, all during a housing crisis. Will the Liberals commit to protecting Canadian rights by ensuring no future agreements are signed without clearly stating that private properties come first and are protected? [Expand] Taleeb Noormohamed (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our government has made it clear, first by appealing the decision and then by making clear statements that we not only stand for property rights but also defend them. The concern here is that the opposition is not interested in the answer. What its members are interested in is fearmongering, spreading misinformation, driving mistrust in the market and creating economic uncertainty. That is what they are about. We are about making sure we are protecting property rights, building a strong economy and pursuing reconciliation. [Expand] Tamara Jansen (Cloverdale—Langley City, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I held a town hall with business leaders in my riding, and I expected to hear about tariffs and red tape. Instead, the number one concern by far was this: Do we still even own our own homes? Decisions such as the Cowichan ruling and the Liberals' secret Musqueam agreement are shaking confidence in property rights. Investment is freezing, builders are backing off and uncertainty is growing. People are starting to wonder if we are drifting toward that “you will own nothing and be happy” mantra. Is that where the Prime Minister is taking us, or will he instruct his lawyers to defend the property rights of Canadian homeowners, yes or no? [Expand] Hon. Rebecca Alty (Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, reconciliation and economic development go hand in hand. Through litigation, we are defending private property. For those nations where we are in negotiations with the Government of British Columbia and first nations, it is an opportunity to sit down at the table and actually be clear that private property is excluded, so we will continue through litigation, as well as through negotiation. (1500) [Translation ]

The Environment

[Expand] Louis Villeneuve (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada's new government recently announced a new strategy to protect nature. Backed by a $3.8-billion investment, this new strategy will help protect and restore critical habitats, ensure that industrial strategies complement our conservation efforts and mobilize new capital for nature. Can the Secretary of State for Nature tell Canadians about our new plan to protect our natural environment for generations to come? [Expand] Hon. Nathalie Provost (Secretary of State (Nature), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Brome—Missisquoi, for his question and for his commitment to nature. It is important and precious to Canadians. That is why our government remains committed to protecting 30% of our lands and waters by 2030. Our new initiative, “A Force of Nature: Canada's Strategy to Protect Nature”, will protect nature more effectively and at a lower cost, specifically by mobilizing private capital. Canadians love nature, and so do we. It needs to be protected, and that is exactly what we will do. [English ]

Ethics

[Expand] Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Sturgeon River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, for more than eight hours, Liberal MPs have been filibustering to shield the finance minister from appearing before the ethics committee to answer questions about his role in directing billions of tax dollars to the Alto high-speed rail project, notwithstanding that his partner is none other than a VP at Alto. This raises serious questions about a potential conflict of interest. If the minister has nothing to hide, will he tell the filibustering Liberal MPs to stop, and will he come to committee? [Expand] Hon. Steven MacKinnon (Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, Canadian members of Parliament and designated public office holders follow among the most stringent ethics rules in the world. We will comply vigorously, as my colleague the Minister of Finance has done. I will take this opportunity to remind the hon. member across the aisle that Alto is a crown corporation, 100% owned by Canadians. [Expand] Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Sturgeon River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the minister has acknowledged a conflict in respect of Alto, hence setting up the so-called ethics screen, yet he has repeatedly introduced, spoken to and voted on legislation to advance the project. Instead of clearing the air, we now have the spectacle of Liberal MPs filibustering at committee to shield the minister from accountability. It begs this question: Is this what Canadians can expect a Liberal majority government to look like? [Expand] Hon. Steven MacKinnon (Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, while we are on the topic, let us talk about the dream of high-speed rail for Canadians: 1,000 kilometres of a linear project that will change the face of mobility in this country, for workers, for students, and for people who live in one city and work, play or study in another. This will take greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere and will change life for millions of Canadians. This is the kind of project Conservatives used to dream about. The Liberal government is going to build high-speed rail with or without them.

Rail Transportation

[Expand] Shelby Kramp-Neuman (Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in February 2025, the Prime Minister announced a project that will see thousands of property owners across Ontario and Quebec face expropriation, communities divided and Canadians forced to pay over $90 billion. From day one, the government has failed to answer even the most basic questions about the cost, timing, impacts, routes or construction. This is not government vision; it is reckless vanity. Will the minister finally listen to the thousands of concerned property owners in eastern Ontario, cancel the Alto high-speed rail and invest in priorities and infrastructure that Canadians actually need? [Expand] Hon. Steven MacKinnon (Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr Speaker, just three years ago, in 2023, a grand gathering of Conservatives gathered in convention and solemnly debated the great dream of high-speed rail in this country. The conclusion the Conservative delegates came to overwhelmingly, just three years ago said, was to build high-speed rail in this country. Now the Conservative leader cynically says he would cancel it. The Conservatives used to think big, but now it is up to us. (1505) [Translation ]

The Economy

[Expand] Linda Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, over the past year, Canadians have had to adapt to a rapidly changing and increasingly fragmented world. Today's world is more complex, more unstable, and, for many, more costly and unpredictable. In this context, Canadians have done what they have always done: rolled up their sleeves, supported one another and adapted. This work is required of every one of us. Now is the time for Canada to build together. Yesterday, the citizens of Scarborough Southwest, Terrebonne and University—Rosedale renewed their confidence in this plan. Can the Minister of Finance inform the House of the next steps in our plan? [Expand] Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Finance and National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her excellent work. Indeed, the 2025 budget is a generational plan to invest in housing, infrastructure, innovation and productivity as well as defence. Together, we will build the strongest economy in the G7. I look forward to presenting the spring economic statement to the House on April 28. We will continue to build an inclusive Canada, a strong Canada for all Canadians. [English ]

Foreign Affairs

[Expand] Hon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills North, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Iran is a serial violator of human rights, and because of that the government formally designates Iran as a state supporter of terrorism under the State Immunity Act. However, last Wednesday, the Liberal government voted in favour of Iran's membership on the United Nations Committee for Programme and Coordination, which plans, programs and coordinates human rights at the United Nations. Why did the government vote in favour of Iran's membership on this committee? [Expand] Hon. Mona Fortier (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been very clear. We are currently supporting and making sure that civilians and civilian infrastructure are protected and that international law is respected, and we will stand for the safety and security of Canadians wherever they may be around the world. We will continue to monitor the efforts that are being made in Iran.

Health

[Expand] Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP): Mr. Speaker, two months ago the Minister of Health stood in the House and called herself “the guardian of the Canada Health Act”, yet after months of delay, she has failed to act while Danielle Smith expands American-style “pay for access” diagnostics and two-tiered care. Canadians cannot afford more stalling while our universal health care system is undermined. If the minister is truly the guardian, why is she taking so long to enforce the law and stop the erosion of our public health care system? [Expand] Hon. Marjorie Michel (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the concern that my colleague from the opposite side has. Yes, I am the guardian of the Canada Health Act, and we are working closely with all provinces and territories. We know that Alberta is moving in a direction. My department is having a conversation with Alberta right now. I will have a conversation with my counterparts and will get back to the member.

Science and Innovation

[Expand] Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Mr. Speaker, my question goes to the heart of the issue: Does the government respect science? We are hearing cuts announced across Environment and Climate Change in terms of its research efforts, and in Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and its critical research. Hundreds of scientists around the world have expressed alarm at killing an entire segment of our scientific capacity for insect taxonomy. Has the Prime Minister ever consulted his chief science adviser about these cuts before the pink slips go out? [Expand] Karim Bardeesy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, we made record investments in science and research in the 2024 budget, and now in the 2025 budget on our impact-plus research chairs program. Some of the work we do is through government science, and we get good advice on that from our hard-working chief science officer. More important, and in a greater forum, we make significant investments through researchers outside government. I had the recent opportunity to go to Vancouver Island and visit Ocean Networks Canada to accompany my colleague, the member for Victoria, at the University of Victoria's Pacific Marine Institute for Marine Energy Discovery and the Centre for Aerospace Research in North Saanich. I look forward to continuing to build on that work with the member and with the member for Victoria.

Government Orders

[Business of Supply]

(1510) [English ]

Business of Supply

Opposition Motion—Fuel Taxes

The House resumed consideration of the motion. [Expand] Michael Guglielmin (Vaughan—Woodbridge, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the four-point plan before the House today is the following: to remove the fuel excise tax, which is adding 10¢ a litre, for the remainder of 2026; to remove the GST on gas and diesel, which is eight cents a litre, for the remainder of 2026; to permanently remove the clean fuel standard, which is seven cents a litre; and to permanently remove the industrial carbon tax. If we look around the world at many of our allies, Australia has cut fuel and diesel taxes in half for three months. Germany announced $1.9 billion in fuel price relief. Ireland has cut its excise tax duty by 10¢ per litre. Spain, Italy, Austria and Portugal have all moved on this, but Canada, a country that produces its own oil, has done the least of all of them. It is time for the Prime Minister to listen to Canadians and support our plan to leave more money in the pockets of people and make life more affordable back home. He took the first step in our Conservative plan this morning. The House can do the rest now. [Expand] Grant Jackson (Brandon—Souris, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my excellent colleague from Vaughan—Woodbridge for that great speech, which was interrupted by a bunch of drivel during question period about how the Liberals have reinvented affordability for the umpteenth time since they caused this affordability crisis when they took office 11 years ago. I wonder if my colleague can comment a bit more on how shallow the depth of their announcement earlier today is and what real relief for Canadian families might look like. [Expand] Michael Guglielmin: Mr. Speaker, of course, we should not be surprised with the plan the Liberal Prime Minister announced today. While it does include one point of our four-point plan to make life more affordable for Canadians, everything the Liberal government does, especially under the current Prime Minister, is half measures. The Liberals have all this rhetoric about all the amazing things they are going to do, how they are going to help people and how they are going to make life more affordable, but the reality of what they actually do never really lines up with what they say. That is why our plan wants us to go even further and deeper, so there are more savings for Canadians. We want to cut the industrial carbon tax, remove the fuel standard, remove the excise tax until the end of the year, and most importantly, continue the good fight for the working men and women of this country so we can make life more affordable for them. (1515) [Expand] Vince Gasparro (Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Combatting Crime), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I listened to the hon. member's remarks very closely. He knows I have a great deal of respect for him. However, to be quite frank, is this just a cheap political trick to try to score some points? Our new government made an announcement. We are removing the excise tax from fuel, which is providing a great deal of relief for Canadians. We took the carbon tax off gasoline as well, reducing fuel prices by over 24¢ a litre. Is this not just a cheap political trick to try to save a failing Conservative Party? [Expand] Michael Guglielmin: Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows I have a lot of respect for him as well. However, on this side of the House, we are very well aware that the Liberals just put together a costly majority, not at the ballot box, but with cheap backroom tricks to get politicians of this House to betray their own voters and constituents. Of course, there is nothing cheap or political about putting money back into the pockets of the very hard-working men and women of this country, who would find nothing political and cheap about getting the government to remove the GST on gas and diesel, adding eight cents a litre of savings, permanently removing the fuel energy standard, saving another seven cents a litre, and removing the industrial carbon tax that is poised to go up to $170 per tonne, which is completely unacceptable. It is common sense. If we add inputs, we drive up costs and make things more expensive. If we get rid of those inputs, things get cheaper. I do not understand why the Liberal government cannot understand this very simple fact. [Expand] Ned Kuruc (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Prime Minister caved to Conservative pressure today and announced that he will make some cuts at the pumps. That could not have happened without the hard work on this side of the aisle, but it has fallen short. Can my very good friend and colleague explain why voting tomorrow for this motion to save Canadians even more money is essential for the folks in his riding? [Expand] Michael Guglielmin: Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge, as in many ridings all across this country, people are finding it more and more expensive to fill up their tanks at the gas station. Very simply, when we look at the things the Liberal government announces, as I said in my speech, its actions never match reality. It is very unfortunate that the government has decided to only take one portion of our plan to make life more affordable for Canadians. The Prime Minister said he wants to collaborate and work together. If he wants his rhetoric to match reality, then he should adopt the rest of our plan, go the full way, remove the GST from gas and diesel, remove the fuel standard, remove the industrial carbon tax and let us work together to make life more affordable for Canadians. [Translation ]

[Expand] Linda Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for St. Catharines, who will speak after me. I am very pleased to take part in today's debate on an issue affecting all Canadians. Our government is well aware of the pressures involved in Canada's rising cost of living, especially the rising cost of fuel, at a time of intense political tension worldwide. We recently saw the price of gas spike across the country, causing financial problems for a lot of Canadians. For many people, filling up at the gas station has become a nerve-racking experience. We understand the problem. That is why we have decided to introduce a practical measure to bring consumers some relief. As everyone knows, a few hours ago, the Prime Minister announced that the government will suspend the federal fuel excise tax on gasoline and diesel from Monday, April 20, until Labour Day, September 7. The federal excise tax is currently 10¢ per litre for gasoline and four cents per litre for diesel. We estimate that the temporary suspension of the excise tax on gasoline and diesel for this period will save Canadian consumers up to $5.75 on a 50-litre tank of regular gas or $2.30 on a tank of diesel. This suspension will save Canadians over $2.3 billion in 2026. Canada's new government is actively working to make life for affordable for all Canadians. For example, we introduced major tax cuts to reduce Canadians' tax burden. Since July 1, 2025, Canadians have been paying less tax because the government reduced the lowest individual income tax rate from 15% to 14%. This measure is helping some 22 million Canadians, with individuals paying up to $420 less in tax and two-income families saving up to $840 this year. Our government also eliminated the GST for first-time new homebuyers for homes valued at $1 million or less and reduced the GST for first-time new homebuyers for homes valued between $1 million and $1.5 million. In addition, we are providing support to more than 12 million low- and modest-income Canadians to help them meet their daily needs through the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit. Specifically, we will provide a one-time top-up as soon as possible this spring, equivalent to a 50% increase in the annual value of the GST credit for 2025-26. This measure will provide immediate support of $3.1 billion to 12 million Canadians who currently receive the GST credit. Following this one-time payment made in the spring, eligible families and individuals in Canada will receive regular enhanced payments under the Canada groceries and essentials benefit starting in July 2026. For information purposes, and for the benefit of those currently watching the House of Commons on television, people who receive the GST credit do not need to do anything. They will receive the grocery benefit. They do not need to take any action except file a tax return. By simply filing their tax return, they will receive all the benefits without having to do anything else. The benefit will increase by 25% over five years starting in July 2026, providing an additional $8.6 billion in support over the next five years. The benefit will be paid at the start of each quarter to allow families to access the funds quickly to help cover their daily expenses. Thanks to these measures, a family of four will receive up to $1,890 this year and approximately $1,400 per year over the next four years through the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit. (1520) A single person, on the other hand, will receive up to $950 this year and approximately $700 per year for the next four years. As soon as he took office, the Prime Minister abolished the federal consumer carbon pricing, effective April 1, 2025, which resulted in direct savings for Canadians at the pump. The government also eliminated the requirement for provinces and territories to impose a carbon price on consumers as of that date. These measures helped reduce the price of gasoline in most provinces and territories by approximately 18¢ per litre compared to 2024–25. This measure has helped reduce inflation and lower the cost of living for all Canadians. In addition, our government has made permanent Canada's national school food program, which provides school meals to nearly 400,000 children each year, allowing participating families with two school-aged children to save approximately $800 a year on groceries. We have also introduced automatic federal benefits for the 2026 tax year to ensure that up to 5.5 million low-income Canadians automatically receive the benefits they are entitled to by the 2028 tax year, including the Canada groceries and essentials benefit and the Canada child benefit. What is more, we have implemented ambitious pro-competition measures in the telecommunications and financial sectors to boost competition and lower prices, making it easier for Canadians to switch providers and pay lower bank and service fees. In conclusion, at a time when disruptions in global supply chains and geopolitical tensions are driving up prices, our government is taking action. Our government's goal is to build a stronger economy to create more job opportunities and boost wages. At the same time, we are cutting costs to make life more affordable across the country. This is how we will be able to offer more Canadians greater certainty, security and prosperity, now and in the future. Furthermore, with the measure announced today by the Prime Minister, we will provide additional relief to Canadian consumers of gasoline and diesel. They will be able to save some of their hard-earned money and purchase other goods their families need. Our government is building a stronger economy to make life more affordable for all Canadians. To that end, we are establishing new trade and investment partnerships abroad and enhancing our domestic strengths to create great career opportunities and higher wages for Canadians. As my colleagues surely know, I sit on the Standing Committee on International Trade. We are working very hard to secure additional trade agreements so that we are less vulnerable to the country south of the border. We are working very hard, and this will create good jobs here in Canada. In addition, we are implementing a number of concrete measures to ensure that Canadians get the support they need right now. Our government has introduced a range of new cost-cutting measures, including a tax cut for 22 million Canadians, a plan to fast-track residential construction, and the production and expansion of critical social programs. (1525) [Expand] Hon. Élisabeth Brière (Sherbrooke, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my colleague painted a very rosy picture of all the measures we are putting in place to help Canadians in a volatile and complex context. We know that the price of fuel is very unpredictable because of all the supply chain disruptions in the Middle East. How will the measure announced today regarding the excise tax help trucking companies, particularly those in the food and agriculture sectors, save money? [Expand] Linda Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, it is true that gasoline is not just for private individuals. It is also used throughout the supply chain. If we reduce the price of a litre of regular gasoline by 10¢ and the price of a litre of diesel by four cents, it will undoubtedly have an impact on grocery prices. This has already been mentioned. The entire logistics chain and the transportation of goods will be affected. The current conflict in the Middle East was not started by us, but it has direct repercussions here in Canada, but not just in Canada. It has repercussions all over the world. The ongoing conflict has driven up the price of oil, and whether we like it or not, this is increasing the cost of supplies. [Expand] Jacques Gourde (Lévis—Lotbinière, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this morning I listened to the Liberal government's announcement. They are talking about lowering the price of diesel. Diesel currently costs about $2.75 a litre. The government announced a four-cent-per-litre reduction. In the trucking industry it can cost between $1,300 and $1,500 a day to run a truck on diesel. Will this four-cent reduction make a big difference? Could the government have been a little more generous? (1530) [Expand] Linda Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague, who got an A earlier for the way he presented his question. We must give credit where credit is due. With respect to his question, which is a very serious one, we have decided to cut four cents off every litre of diesel. I am very interested in knowing what my colleagues think of our plan to temporarily suspend the excise tax on gasoline and diesel. Will they vote for it? Will they vote for our plan? Also, can Conservative MPs confidently predict what will happen in six to 12 months? Members must also consider the fact that we have set a specific period, a window, from April 20 to September 7. We will see how the global geopolitical situation evolves. We are going to have our say, but we do not control everything that happens in the world even though we try to maintain ties and promote an inclusive policy and a sound understanding of democracy around the world. [Expand] Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is good to give taxpayers a bit of breathing room when they buy gas, but we know that this is a cyclical problem that will disappear and may come back. Would the long-term solution not be to provide more funding for the electrification of transportation? We have seen a rather significant withdrawal on the part of the government in this respect. Does my colleague agree that, if we want to address this issue once and for all, the best thing to do is to accelerate the electrification of transportation? [Expand] Linda Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, on the subject of transportation electrification, Quebec's electric vehicle fleet is quite large. Quebec has the most electric vehicles on the road. The federal and provincial governments decided to invest in giving people a rebate when they buy an electric vehicle. I understand my colleague's concern. This is a difficult situation. Most families are watching the price of everything go up, and they are wondering how to cope. That is why we decided to reduce the cost of regular gasoline by 10¢ per litre and the cost of diesel by four cents per litre. This will start on April 20 and go until September 7. We will see how things go, but the Strait of Hormuz situation needs to end. [English ]

[Expand] Chris Bittle (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, across the world, conflict and instability, particularly in the Middle East and with disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz, have put pressure on the global oil supply. Prices are rising. Canadians are feeling it. They are feeling it at the pump, on the grocery bill and in the cost of moving goods across the country. Let me be clear: Canadians are right to be concerned. However, in moments like this, Canadians expect seriousness. They expect leadership grounded in facts, not slogans. They expect a plan that deals with both the immediate pressures they are facing today and the structural challenges we must solve tomorrow. It is exactly what our government is delivering. Let us start with the reality. Canada does not control the global price of oil. We do not control geopolitical conflicts. We do not control disruptions in international shipping lanes. We do not control the decisions of OPEC or other major producers. What we can control, and what we must control, is how we respond. Today, our response is clear: immediate relief for Canadians paired with long-term energy security. Earlier today, the Prime Minister announced that our government will temporarily suspend the federal fuel excise tax on gasoline and diesel, from April to Labour Day. That means real savings for Canadians. It means up to 10¢ a litre off gasoline, money that stays in the pockets of Canadians. It means savings every time a parent fills up the car, every time a small business fuels a delivery truck and every time goods move across our country. This is targeted, and it is how we are responding responsibly for Canadians. It recognizes that the price spike Canadians are experiencing is driven by external global factors, not long-term domestic policy. It provides relief without undermining the fiscal stability Canadians depend on. Now let us contrast that with what the Conservatives are proposing. Their motion calls for sweeping permanent changes based on assumptions about oil prices that they simply cannot guarantee. Their entire plan depends on one thing, that global oil prices remain high. We have already seen how quickly those prices can change. Following a ceasefire announcement, prices dropped sharply in a matter of days. The question is simple: Are we going to base national fiscal policy on speculation about global oil markets? That is exactly what the Conservatives are doing. As outlined in the Conservative leader 's letter to the Prime Minister, their plan assumes billions in revenue that may never materialize and would commit billions in permanent tax cuts that would leave a hole in our public finances. That is not a serious plan for a serious moment. From a natural resources perspective, the debate is about something bigger than just taxes. It is about energy security. This global crisis has revealed a fundamental truth. Countries that control their energy future are more resilient. Countries that do not are exposed. Canada is fortunate. We are one of the world's great energy nations. We have the fourth-largest proven oil reserves. We are a leading producer of natural gas. We are building major projects in LNG, nuclear, hydro and clean electricity. We are using that strength not just for ourselves but for our allies. Canadian energy exports are rising. The Trans Mountain expansion is moving record volumes. LNG exports are reaching global markets. Canada is playing a key role in stabilizing supply during a volatile period. That is what it means to be an energy superpower. Being an energy superpower also means something else. It means building for the future. While we deal with today's price spike, we must also ensure that Canadians are not exposed again. That is why our government is investing in clean electricity, low-emissions LNG, nuclear energy and the infrastructure that connects our resources to global markets. We are building an energy system that is more resilient, more independent and more affordable over the long term. Let us talk about what the Conservative motion would actually do. It is not just about the excise tax. It proposes eliminating the clean fuel regulations. It proposes scrapping the industrial carbon pricing. These are not minor changes. These are policies that are driving tens of billions of dollars in investment into Canada's energy sector, supporting projects like carbon capture, clean fuels and low-emissions production. Scrapping them would not make Canada stronger, and the Premier of Alberta has said as much. (1535) It would make Canada less competitive. It would send a signal to investors that Canada is stepping back from the very policies that are helping us access global markets and create domestic demand for canola and other crops to support cleaner fuels. At a time when our allies are demanding cleaner, more responsible energy, that is a risk we cannot afford to take. There is another consequence that the Conservatives have not addressed: The proposal would have real impacts on municipal infrastructure funding. Fuel tax revenues support communities across the country, helping to build roads, transit systems, water infrastructure and climate-resilient projects. These are not abstract concepts; they are projects Canadians rely on every single day. Undermining that funding without credible replacement would shift costs onto provinces, municipalities and our future taxpayers. What the Conservatives are saying is that they do not care how much property taxes increase for their constituents. They want to have a quick, cheap political win without thinking of the consequences back home. Again, that is not responsible. Our approach is different. We recognize that Canadians need help today, and that is why we are acting to lower costs at the pump. We are doing it in a way that is targeted, temporary and responsible. We are pairing that with a broader plan to strengthen affordability, such as cutting taxes for the middle class, providing support for groceries and essentials, investing in housing, lowering child care costs and promoting stronger competition across key sectors. That is because affordability will not be solved by a single policy. It will be solved by a comprehensive plan. At its core, this debate comes down to a simple choice: Do we respond to global volatility with serious targeted action or with permanent, unfunded promises? Do we build Canada's energy future or do we undermine the very policies that are attracting jobs and investment? Do we offer Canadians real relief today or build resilience tomorrow? Our government has made this choice. We are providing immediate relief to Canadians at the pump. We are building Canada into an energy superpower, and we are doing it in a way that strengthens our economy, supports our workers and ensures that Canadians have the certainty and security they deserve. Canadians understand that we cannot control what happens abroad, but they also understand that we can control how we respond. Today, we are responding with leadership, with responsibility and with a clear plan to build a stronger Canada. For those reasons, I urge all members of this House to reject this motion and support a responsible path forward for Canadians. (1540) [Expand] Pat Kelly (Calgary Crowfoot, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in the member's speech, he talked about the importance of energy security and energy sovereignty. He was elected, I believe, when I was, in 2015. Almost literally the first thing that his party's cabinet did was to cancel the northern gateway pipeline, which was already conditionally approved. They chased all investors out of the energy east proposal. They chased out the private sector builder of the Trans Mountain pipeline so that it had to be nationalized and built at an extraordinary expense. I put it to the member that his party's government has spent 10 years undermining Canada's energy sovereignty. Will he apologize for putting Canada in the position that we are in today? [Expand] Chris Bittle: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. The hon. member gets up to say that we are opposed to developing energy, yet he has been critical of building a pipeline, the Trans Mountain pipeline. I will be honest that at the time I was opposed to it, but Prime Minister Trudeau was right that it needed to get built, because we would be in a much worse position now if that pipeline had not been built. The Conservatives were critical, but at that time we got that pipeline built. Conservatives spent years trying to get oil to tidewater. They were not successful. They tried to ram through projects and violated the rights of people. We are going to get things done, we are going to get things built, and we are going to do it the right way. [Expand] Lori Idlout (Nunavut, Lib.): Uqaqtittiji, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent speech. He described really well what the Conservatives do not seem to understand, the meaning behind what would happen if, for example, the gas tax fund was permanently ended. What impact would that have on bodies like the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, which does rely on that fund? [Expand] Chris Bittle: Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. The Conservatives would starve municipalities of funding. We heard in the lead-up to the last election that they saw mayors and city councillors as the enemy. Their leader spent week after week condemning mayors and elected officials as the villains in this country on housing and infrastructure. This just shows that nothing has changed and that the Conservatives would starve them of the money they need for infrastructure. My community in St. Catharines, and every member's community across the country, uses that fund to build roads and bridges, keep the property taxes lower in the community and build necessary infrastructure. The Conservatives would just do away with that and leave them to their own accord. They do not care about property taxes back in their own communities. This is clear, based on this back-of-the-napkin math that they are coming up with on this motion. [Expand] Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague who brought up the pipeline. As it was planned initially many years ago, the cost was substantially lower. I believe the cost at the time was $4.9 billion, when the private sector was going to get that pipeline to tidewater. I just want the member to answer a simple question. I can answer it for him if he wishes. It was supposed to be $4.9 billion. It ended up costing quite a bit more than that. Does the member actually know what the final price tag was? It was closer to $30 billion or $40 billion. [Expand] Chris Bittle: Mr. Speaker, I guess that is why they call it “questions and comments”. We can ask a rhetorical question and answer it ourselves before even putting it aside. However, this shows that the Conservatives are against the thing that they are asking for. It boggles the mind that as a government they showed for years that they could not get anything done. Any project they pushed forward was stopped by the courts, stalled and denied. The projects would have violated indigenous rights and gone against premiers at every opportunity. We have heard recently from the Leader of the Opposition that he would do exactly the same thing. No lessons have been learned during their time in opposition. No lessons were learned when the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet and he saw that all of these energy projects that they were going to ram down the throats of Canadians were denied and stalled. Nothing happened, and nothing has changed in all of this time. (1545) [Expand] Eric Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—Glengarry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister 's announcement earlier today in providing gas tax relief to Canadians is a half-baked measure. The Liberals, in contrast to our Conservative plan, are offering a third of the relief for a third of the year. This is at a time when we have seen gas and diesel prices spike significantly around the country and around the world. There is a saying that we can only control what we can control. It is very true that in the situation in Iran, with the war that is going on there, there is not much that Canada can contribute to that directly or cause for that, but what we can control is the amount of taxes that Canadians are charged at the pumps. Right now, that is 25¢ a litre on gasoline and 21¢ a litre on diesel in federal taxes. What the Liberals announced today is only one portion of relief from now until Labour Day. Our Conservative proposal, in contrast, is to provide real, meaningful relief at the pumps for Canadians, not only removing the federal fuel excise tax of 10¢ a litre. They have done that measure, but what they have not done is take off their latest, what I call, hidden carbon tax. They call it a clean fuel standard, but it is basically their new carbon tax of seven cents a litre in federal tax. They are keeping that in and, of course, the GST portion of that as well, which amounts to about eight cents a litre. We are getting a half-baked measure when it comes to this. What Conservatives are calling for, when it comes to gasoline and diesel, is to give the full relief of 25¢ a litre off the price of gasoline and 21¢ a litre off the price of diesel for the remainder of the year, 2026. That can provide a family of four about $1,200 more that they can keep in their pocket this year. Every time they fill up, they would save $20 at the pump. That is real, meaningful relief. There is a key part about this I want to raise. We can afford this because with the higher oil prices out there, the Liberals will be getting a windfall that is expected to be about $10 billion in extra revenue that was not anticipated because of these higher oil prices. If we completely cut the federal taxes on gasoline and diesel, it could be paid for simply by the extra revenues that are already going to be collected and Canadians paying higher prices as it is. Give Canadians real, meaningful relief at the pumps. Many may know my family history. My father and mother owned a trucking business for many years. My dad just retired from that business a couple of years ago, JED Express, which we have been proud to operate in South Mountain, Ontario, for many years, a few decades. I am very proud that my dad worked his way up and built a business from scratch, all the way into one of Canada's best-managed companies for several years running. My dad is happily retired now, playing pickleball and golf. I want to acknowledge our background in trucking and our history in that industry, something I grew up with around me. When we talk about being able to lower prices for Canadians on the cost of food and moving things around this country, our plan of taking 21¢ a litre, all the federal gas tax, off the price of diesel would make a tangible, more meaningful difference than what the Liberals are offering. The Liberals are offering to take four cents a litre off the price of diesel. That is going to be pennies to the billions that they will collect in extra revenues over the course of the next few months with higher oil prices. In the trucking industry, very often the way rates are determined is on a base rate provided by a trucking company or an owner-operator plus a fuel surcharge, which is the actual price of fuel on those given days. As opposed to taking four cents a litre off, as the Liberals propose, and we take 21¢ a litre off, that would drop the fuel surcharge, drop the cost of trucking and drop the cost of transporting food and goods across this country immediately. It is a meaningful way to lower inflation. When we have serious food inflation, it is a meaningful way to do that. I am proud to take my experience from the trucking industry and say that our Conservative plan would do more to lower costs for Canadians, for food and for getting things moved around our country. (1550) What we see from the Liberals all the time are half-baked measures. I will say this a different way and repeat the old line that I say in politics and in the work that I have done: Sometimes one needs to do a little R and D, rob and duplicate. We have actually seen the Liberal government do that, but to half-baked measures in extent. We have seen it with the consumer carbon tax, which the Liberals eliminated only after years and years of relentless Conservative pressure to axe the tax. The Liberals knew they were in such a perilous political position that they had to scrap it. This was after years of defending the rebates, years of claiming that the taxes they put on did not amount to any extra cost to people, and saying that they could just add these taxes on at the pumps and that the cost of things would not go up, inflation would not go up, the cost of fuel would not go up and the cost of business would not go up. Instead, what we are seeing now is a half-baked measure. The industrial carbon tax is in place, which just went up on April 1, and it is going to drive up the cost of doing business and drive up inflation in this country. Nobody believes that adding in taxes anywhere in the economy does not get passed on in the form of higher costs to consumers who purchase goods and services here at home. It was a half-baked measure to get rid of the consumer carbon tax and keep the industrial carbon tax. Furthermore, it was a half-baked “rob and duplicate” effort, because the Liberals brought in the so-called clean fuel standard. Right now, on the price of gas, it is seven cents a litre. The Liberals are refusing to eliminate it, and it is only going to get worse. Not only are they keeping that in place over the course of the next few months and going into the future, but it is also going to be increased from the current seven cents a litre to 17¢ a litre by the year 2030. That is something Canadians cannot afford, whether they are seniors, young people or parents driving their kids to hockey or soccer, just going out to get groceries or going back and forth to work. Heaven forbid that Canadians would want to take a family vacation. That seven cents a litre belongs in the pockets of Canadians rather than in the Liberal coffers this year. We have talked about half-baked measures. Meaningful relief is what we are not seeing from the government, which is not taking a serious approach to providing relief. The contrast could not be more clear. The Liberals want to provide a third of the relief for a third of the year, compared to what our Conservative position is on this. At the end of the day, it is important for Canadians to know that Conservatives are on their side, fighting for them and fighting for lower costs and lower gas bills in every part of this country. It is important to know that at the end of the day it is constant increases, the Liberal taxes on everything, that are making life more expensive in every part of this country. The Liberals stubbornly refuse to go the full way and provide full, meaningful relief. They are offering only a 10¢ reduction on the price of gasoline, when there was an opportunity to have a 25¢ reduction, taking all the federal taxes off. It is very frustrating to see that costs are going up over and over again. The cost of government is going up. The cost of Liberal deficits is going up. Inflation is going up. Our food inflation is the highest in the G7. We have the second-slowest growth in the G7. There was actually a drop in GDP in the fourth quarter of last year, and projections are not strong. What Canadians are going to see is a continued effort by the Conservative team to fight for real and meaningful relief. Our opposition day motion is clear that the Liberal plan announced does not go far enough to provide meaningful relief to Canadians. The Liberals could take off the fuel excise tax of 10¢ a litre, which they have done, but they could go further. They could take the GST of eight cents off. They could take the clean fuel standards of seven cents off. They could provide 25¢ a litre in relief. On diesel prices, that total is 21¢ a litre. That could help families and businesses at a time when they truly need it. We will keep standing up for affordability in this country and will let Canadians know that we are on their side. (1555) [Expand] Hon. Kody Blois (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as a government, we are proud of the work that the Prime Minister has done to announce today the removal of the federal excise tax, as the member, I hope, acknowledged in his remarks. I was sitting down today with farmers from Ontario, farmers in the corn industry and individuals who play in through ethanol markets to reduce emissions on fuel. It is also a really important element around farm gate revenue. Actually, farmers in eastern Ontario benefit from the clean fuel standard in terms of this actually reducing emissions and driving benefit into rural communities. The member represents a rural Ontario riding. There are farmers in his riding who benefit from this policy. At the end of the day, it is actually a policy that reduces emissions and supports investment income in rural Canada. Why are the Conservatives against the policy, and why did they have absolutely nothing to say about farmers in this country in their April 2025 platform? [Expand] Eric Duncan: Mr. Speaker, we fought for years on the side of Canadian farmers to axe the carbon tax, which the Liberals refused to do for years. It was only after relentless Conservative pressure and the Prime Minister 's realizing his political situation that he decided to do so, only because Conservatives had advocated for that. Here is the thing with Liberals. They say that they have a clean fuel standard of seven cents a litre. It is going up to 17¢ a litre. That includes on the price of diesel, which is used a lot on Canadian farms. They say they all benefit from paying 17¢ a litre more in the coming years, with zero rebates and zero direct benefit to them. We have seen this game before: “Do not worry. Pay this extra tax, but there is no extra cost to the cost of farming or of doing business.” It is just miraculous. Now they know, and they claim that the consumer carbon tax did do that. It is about time they did the same thing for their fuel standard. It is putting farmers out of pocket big time. [Translation ]

[Expand] Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I understand that my Conservative colleagues are concerned about inflation, the rising cost of living and the rising cost of fuel. We know that it is cyclical. We know that when there is a geopolitical crisis, the cost of fuel goes up. However, there is a long-term solution that I never hear my Conservative colleagues talk about. The solution is the electrification of transportation. If we want to be less dependent on fuel and fluctuating prices, the best solution we have is to accelerate the electrification of transportation, particularly in Quebec, where hydroelectricity is abundant and very affordable. Does my colleague not think that as the government cuts the gas tax, it should focus more on the electrification of transportation? [English ]

[Expand] Eric Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I am always open to new technologies and new ways of doing things. That is how the world evolves and how things have evolved for generations. Here is the problem with the approach of the Bloc Québécois and the Liberals, for which I will give an example. My colleague the member for Regina—Wascana asked a question in question period earlier this week about the electrification of the bus fleet in Regina. The federal government subsidized hundreds of millions of dollars for electric buses in Canada that do not work in the winter. They work for only three hours before they need a charge again. That was an absolute waste of taxpayers' money at a time when the technology is not there. I am all in favour of embracing technology and giving municipalities and businesses the option for them to choose what is best for them. That is number one. Number two is that when those technologies are not thoroughly thought through, it costs Canadian taxpayers even more. [Expand] Kurt Holman (London—Fanshawe, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I know that the Liberal government says it is going to exempt the taxes all the way to September, but the Conservative plan offers the full exemption of taxes all the way to the end of 2026. With this opportunity, I want my colleague to expand on how this would help the people of his riding and all Canadians. (1600) [Expand] Eric Duncan: Mr. Speaker, this is an opportunity to remind Canadians that our Conservative plan would provide gas tax relief on all federal gas taxes: the excise tax, the clean fuel standard and the GST, a total of 25¢ a litre of the price of gas for the entire remainder of 2026, not just until Labour Day as the Liberals are offering on just the one part at 10¢ a litre. That would provide a family of four with $1,200 in savings. The line I heard very often when I was growing up and becoming interested in politics, and what makes me a Conservative, is one I loved hearing years ago: Money is better spent by someone who earns it than by somebody who collects it. The money belongs in the pockets of Canadians to help them with real, meaningful relief from prices at the pumps. [Expand] Grant Jackson (Brandon—Souris, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Ontario for sharing his time with me. I sincerely appreciate it, and I know that the constituents of Brandon—Souris will as well. It is always an honour to rise on behalf of the constituents in Brandon—Souris, the wheat city in western Manitoba. The important motion before us today is simple, but if implemented fully and properly, it would serve as a very effective way to combat an issue that affects so many Canadians. Gas prices in Manitoba are some of the highest we have seen in years. It is all I heard about at the doors and at community halls these past few weeks through Easter. In a country as large as Canada, driving is often a necessity and not a choice, especially in the rural regions I represent. It is no secret that for years Canadians have struggled with an affordability crisis caused by the Liberal government. Unfortunately, after 11 years of Liberals, we see that their costly deficits and out-of-control spending continue to grow. Liberals are happy to spend the hard-earned paycheques of Canadian taxpayers in the name of bureaucratic red tape, consultants, giant trains that do not touch the prairie provinces, and failed projects that achieve nothing for the people of my region. After a decade of these Liberal taxes, constituents in western Manitoba are looking for some much-needed relief. It is hard to believe, but despite already paying some of the highest prices in the G7 for the food they eat, which many of my constituents grow, and despite paying some of the highest fuel prices they have seen in years, Canadians are seeing prices rising even higher. Earlier this month, the ongoing war in Iran forced Canadians to watch the price of gas skyrocket. Canadians would be forgiven for thinking that these out-of-control prices are hitting our neighbours just the same, as the Liberals often say it is a global crisis. However, that is not the reality. In fact on April 1, Americans were paying 20% less for a litre of gas than we were here in Canada. How does the Liberal government explain that when challenges arise, Canadians seem to be the worst off in the G7? The answer is simple: The Liberals cannot, but Conservatives can. Today, four Liberal taxes on Canadian fuel are responsible for the massive gap between Canada's prices and our closest allies' prices. Regardless of an announcement this morning, the Liberal government currently imposes, first, its fuel excise tax, which costs Canadians 10¢ on every litre of gas they buy. Second is the carbon tax, which the government has simply renamed its fuel standard and which adds another seven cents a litre. Third is the goods and services tax, GST, that applies to gas and diesel, which adds eight more cents to each litre of fuel. Finally, number four, is the industrial carbon tax, which will rise to $170 per tonne, with projections showing a loss of 50,000 jobs and our economy shrinking by 1.3% as a result. Combined, these four taxes add 25¢ on each litre of gasoline and 21¢ on each litre of diesel fuel that Canadians buy. Each of these taxes adds up quickly at the gas station, but with higher prices already in existence before these price shocks have come into effect, Canadians feel even more pressure. All that is in addition to the Liberals' destructive record with Canada's oil and gas sector, the Manitoba component of which I am proud to represent. (1605) The Liberals talk about resilience to world factors in global pricing. If they had allowed pipelines to be built and if we had been refining more of our oil in this country 10 years ago, Canada would have been more resilient to a global conflict that affects the world's price of oil and gas. Unfortunately, they were too short-sighted and stood in the way of those major nation-building infrastructure projects that were under way under the Conservatives, and now Canadians are literally paying the price for it. The Prime Minister claims the Liberals will temporarily pause the fuel excise tax for just a few months, but we have not seen any action yet. If real progress had been made in expanding domestic capacity over the last 11 years, Canadians would have been far better shielded from the fuel prices we now face, but unfortunately the Liberals failed to heed calls from the Conservatives, and now we are where we are. These are all facts that the Liberals have refused to admit are costing Canadians their livelihoods. As Canadians struggle with affordability, the Liberals are actually profiting from higher prices of oil, according to many former Liberal economic advisers. That is right. Canadians may be shocked to learn that every $10 increase in the price of a barrel of oil translates into roughly $2 billion in increased revenue for the federal government. Let us do the math. Oil prices have risen by $45 to $50 in the last few weeks, and if prices stay at their current levels, the Liberal government could collect an extra $9 billion to $10 billion this year. Meanwhile, the revenue from the taxes I mentioned earlier will bring in $5 billion in federal revenue. These are dollars taken directly from the pockets of Canadians, who are forced to pay these high prices at the pumps. Farmers in Manitoba are just about to head to the fields for 2026 planting. When families have already squeezed their budgets for groceries, it is unconscionable that the Liberals are going to take more money from Canadians' pockets and funnel it into pet projects that benefit Liberal insiders and elites. That money should be left in Canadians' pockets so that they can continue to put gas in the tank and food on the table. Over the last two weeks, Conservatives have presented a plan to do that. When families struggle, Conservatives stand up for Canadians. As His Majesty's loyal opposition, Conservatives have put forward legislation in this motion that would benefit the Canadians whose hardships have been for too long ignored by the Liberals, and that is why I am proud to support this Conservative motion today. It would remove the fuel excise tax and the GST on gasoline and diesel until the end of 2026, not just until September, as the Liberals have suggested, and our motion goes further, calling for the removal of the fuel standard and the industrial carbon tax permanently. This is not radical policy. Around the world, allied countries have already beaten Canada to the punch. Australia, Austria, Germany, Spain, Ireland, Italy, each of these countries has taken the initiative to cut fuel prices or give relief at the gas pumps. Their leaders understand the challenges that their people face and have responded in the only way that provides real relief at the pump. Meanwhile, Canada's Prime Minister claimed the Liberals are still just “looking” into it. Then, just this morning, he paused a single one of those taxes for a few months. This does not prove that the Liberals are doing the right thing for Canadians; it proves that they are stumbling behind our allies. Real leadership means taking concrete action before it is too late. Yes, the Liberals do have a history of poaching our policies, which they have clearly attempted to do today, but unfortunately removing just one of the federal taxes we put forward in this motion will not achieve the results that Canadians desperately need. Most of the hard-working people of my riding cannot hop on a train or a bus. They cannot leave the car in the driveway and walk or bike to work or wherever they need to go. That is the reality for most of the people I represent. Regardless of why they need to drive, Canadians who do drive should not be punished by their government for doing so. Our party, knowing that our cause is just and the solution is true, puts this motion forward in good faith today, urging the Liberals to fully accept our ideas on their merits, asking them to review it quickly and praying that they will implement it wholly and swiftly. Canadians are counting on it. (1610) [Expand] Hon. Kody Blois (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the clean fuel standard is not unlike what the Mulroney government did in the 1980s, which was actually mandating companies to remove lead from fuel that Canadians were using. In fact, the clean fuel standard is one of the best policies to actually reinvest into rural communities, because for Canadian farmers, including canola farmers and corn farmers who provide ethanol, this is an important driver of revenue. The member represents Brandon—Souris. Many of his farmers would benefit at the farm gate from these policies. My question for him is this: Why is the Conservative Party so against a policy that would actually support a lot of rural communities in prairie provinces? With this logic, is he suggesting that we should bring back leaded fuel in Canada because we may be able to benefit by a few cents? Is that the position of the Conservative Party? Perhaps he wants to elaborate on what environmental policy, if any, the Conservatives have and how they would cost that out. [Expand] Grant Jackson: Mr. Speaker, while I have great respect for the member and he is welcome to come and visit some of the farmers in western Manitoba any time, I have not found one yet who supports Liberal tax policy with respect to the carbon tax or any other of their massive initiatives that drive up the price of fuel. What I have heard from the farmers is that they need new markets for their canola to sell abroad. There are lots of hungry people in the world. We need additional crushing capacity here in the country to create good jobs, and then we need to find new markets for that. The Liberals attempted to get a deal with China. I am not really sure where that has landed. Did the member get to go? I cannot remember whether he or the ag minister was on that trip. It did not really seem all that focused on agriculture. If he wants to come to western Canada and talk about canola and the path forward for it, he is welcome to do that, and we will deliver to him a very clear message on the path forward. [Translation ]

[Expand] Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am sometimes surprised to hear the Conservatives' complaints about clean fuels, because those who advocate for the industry present these standards to us as beneficial to their sector. Similarly, industry representatives present carbon capture and sequestration, which is incredibly expensive, as beneficial to their sector. I find it strange to hear Conservatives making such a fuss about this today, especially since it is clear that every time fuel taxes are cut, the industry increases its refining margins. This means we are leaving the industry with more room to absorb what could otherwise be passed on to consumers. I would like to hear my colleague say a few words about the discrepancy between the Conservative Party's position and that of industry representatives. [English ]

[Expand] Grant Jackson: Mr. Speaker, I have to apologize. I may be a bit confused. I think the member referenced carbon sequestration. I did not reference that in my speech. What I would like to make clear to the member is that our position with regard to the policy right now is that we need relief, fast, for Canadian consumers, and this is the fastest way to deliver relief to families that are struggling to put gas in the car and to put food on the table. I would always be more in favour of policies that reduce income taxes, for example, but families, right now, in this crisis, cannot afford to wait for a tax cut on income taxes now that they do not get to see the benefits of until they file their taxes in 2027. That is why we are putting this policy forward now. We need real relief, fast, and this policy does it. [Expand] Pat Kelly (Calgary Crowfoot, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we saw today, probably in an attempt to get ahead of the opposition, the announcement that was made this morning, which, as the member and others have remarked, is a half-measure and a short measure compared with all of the other ways in which the government makes fuel and other things more expensive for Canadians. Today was an out-of-body experience with the government during question period, where the Liberals took credit for reducing the price of gasoline by, they said, 25¢. It is almost like they have no idea how the tax got there in the first place. The government has a demonstrated history of piling on the cost of fuel. Does the member have any further comments about this? (1615) [Expand] Grant Jackson: Mr. Speaker, quite often in question period, Liberal responses to questions provide someone with an out-of-body experience that befuddles the mind. Today was exceptional in that we had Liberal members, exactly as the member said, feigning ignorance as to how these taxes got to be at the level they are at. We then had Liberal members admitting that they support pipelines now, when they campaigned against them for 10 years. Other Liberal members, from Quebec, were saying that they were thrilled to get rid of the carbon tax, even though they supported it and campaigned for it for 10 years. [Translation ]

[Expand] The Deputy Speaker: Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, Persons with Disabilities; the hon. member for Kitchener South—Hespeler, Health; the hon. member for Yellowhead, Public Services and Procurement. [English ]

Resuming debate, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister. [Expand] Hon. Kody Blois (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in my time in this place, being almost seven years now, I love opposition day motions. It is always a great privilege to rise in this place to bring the perspective of my constituents in Kings—Hants and engage on the opportunity that the opposition has, whether that be the Conservatives, the NDP or the Bloc, or I guess the Conservatives and the Bloc in this Parliament, to put forward its policy positions so that we are able to litigate the ideas of the opposition. Obviously, the job of the opposition is to hold the government to account, and we respect that, but I always enjoy this opportunity on opposition day motions. Today is broadly about affordability. The Conservatives have listed a number of policy adjustments they would make, and there are some areas where we agree with the Conservatives and some areas where we do not agree. This gives me an opportunity to, first, talk about what the Prime Minister announced today. This is something I know the Conservatives support: the removal of the federal excise tax on gasoline, which represents 10¢ a litre. The Prime Minister announced that the government will be doing that from April 20 up to Labour Day. Essentially for four months, there will be a reprieve for Canadians across the board of 10¢ a litre. We think that is important. We recognize what is happening right now in the Middle East with the war against Iran and the impact of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. It is creating affordability challenges for Canadians, and it will have consequences and cascading impacts over the next number of months. However, I was disappointed that the opposition day motion from the Conservative Party makes no mention of why Canadians are actually feeling higher price points around fuel. There is no mention of the fact that this is part of the global dynamic that we are dealing with. Yes, we have an opportunity to deal with what we can do to provide temporary relief to Canadians. We are going to take that opportunity. I know this will be welcome news in Kings—Hants and across the country. On that aspect, we agree. The Conservatives have talked a lot about the fact that it should have been for 12 months. I would say that the government's response today is a responsible one. It gives clarity for the next four months, with the ability to extend. No one in this room, no one in this chamber and no one in this country has a crystal ball to see what is going to transpire over the next number of months. The government has taken an important step to provide some affordability relief for Canadians. Again, 10¢ a litre is important for people who are struggling to get by, and this is a measure that the government supports. We have implemented it for four months. We disagree that it has to be a 12-month removal at this moment. Let us see what happens in the days ahead. Obviously, we are hoping for a situation where we see the removal of the blockade at the Strait of Hormuz so that products can move back into the world market. We know that this will have important consequences for the global economy, including here in Canada. Again, there is not one single mention in the Conservative motion about the fact of the circumstances we are all dealing with at this point, but on that element, we agree. I listened to my hon. colleague from Brandon—Souris, who just spoke, and the member for Stormont—Dundas—Glengarry before him. I would ask my honourable colleagues on the other side to consider this. My hon. colleague from Brandon—Souris, who just spoke, said that the government is not funding things that matter to his constituents. When we look at the GST in terms of the revenue the government collected, I think the words the Conservatives have used are that the Liberals are going to “pocket” that money instead of putting it “back in the pockets of Canadians”. I am all for affordability. It is important that we are empowering Canadians, but no, the Liberals are not pocketing that money. The revenues collected by the government support programs that matter to constituents in that member's riding, in my riding and in ridings across this House. Do the Conservatives not recognize that when we introduced the Canada child benefit, it is supporting Canadians across the country, including in their own ridings? It is something I am proud of, because it was our government that actually changed the way in which we support young Canadians and families in this country. Before, the Conservative policy allowed individuals who made over $1 million to benefit from the government. I have nothing against individuals who are wealthy in this country, and we are proud of people who do well, but at the end of the day, I hope we would all agree that individuals who have an income of over $1 million a year probably do not need assistance from the government to raise their children. They have the means to do that. We actually created a program that targets the benefit on the basis of income so that there is equity in how individuals have the resources to raise their children and make sure they have healthy food and the ability to perhaps participate in sports or art programs. Again, the Conservatives are not recognizing that the GST helps fund that broadly. (1620) How about national child care? In my own riding, I have seen the benefits of what this program represents in the way we have worked with the provinces and territories to build out additional access to care and additional spaces for our youth. That is an important public policy measure for young Canadians to get an important start in life, to be able to have the resources around them. We know that will have economic and intrinsic benefits for generations and decades to come. Again, there is no mention of the fact that the GST helps support the general revenue that the government pays into these programs that matter for affordability. Beyond what it might mean to young Canadians, which is probably the most important point, the way we have been able to reduce the cost of child care across this country is a massive affordability measure. That is money back in people's pockets, too. Unfortunately, we never see members of His Majesty's loyal opposition talk about the fact that it is good public policy. In fact, the Conservatives have consistently voted against it. Their proposal today would actually remove the revenues that are supporting these types of government programs. It is a very short-sighted policy prescription and not how the government would move forward. I have a lot of seniors in my riding. We were the government that augmented and increased old age security. It has been a number of years, but I will remind members that it was the Conservative Party that told seniors they were going to have to wait longer before they received the benefits for seniors in this country. Again, through the GST, there is a program. These revenues are used to help support social programming across this country. There is no mention from the Conservative Party about the fact that this is the type of funding that the Conservatives would cut, which could have consequential impacts on social programs. Our government is making generational investments in defence and infrastructure across the country. The Conservatives have voted in some elements of this. I will remind my constituents back home that, under the last Conservative government, when we had one in this country, defence spending dipped below 1% of the GDP. I am deeply proud of the Prime Minister and our team for getting it back up to 2%. We are going to continue to increase that, and that costs money. We are running deficits. The irony of what the Conservatives are talking about today is that next week they will be talking about the idea that maybe some of the money that came into the government coffers should have been used to reduce the debt. We will wait until a week forward to see how that actually plays out, but again, the GST funds existing programs, and we are making decisions to put money back in the pockets of Canadians. It is important to make sure that we are being mindful of our fiscal context as well as continuing to not only support programs but also manage Canada's dynamic, while also being thoughtful of how we can make sure money is going back into the pockets of Canadians across the country. I want to take some time to talk about the clean fuel standard. Members might have seen, and perhaps were interested in, my question to the member for Brandon—Souris when I talked about leaded fuel. It was Brian Mulroney's Progressive Conservative government, and we can talk about the differences I see in the current federal Conservative Party versus the old Progressive Conservative style of government that we used to see in the past, but it was under that government that there was a lot of emphasis on removing lead from fuel in Canada. This was not just Canada. There were other countries around the world doing this. The dynamic was that it led to better performance on an efficiency basis, but it was also an important environmental outcome, and people came to accept that this was smart public policy. Here we are, a number of decades later. We do have work to do as a government. We think it is important that the government ought to reduce GHG emissions in this country. We have adjusted policy, and I support the Prime Minister wholeheartedly in that, but we think this is still important. The Conservative platform for the last election did not have much to say with respect to this question, which is fine, but it did say that the Conservatives would spend taxpayers' dollars to try to further incentivize the reduction of GHG emissions in the country, so pardon me if I find it a bit hypocritical to have the Conservatives stand up to talk about policies for reducing emissions and driving cleaner fuel efficiency, just like leaded versus unleaded fuel in the Brian Mulroney government, and the cost of those. This is notwithstanding the fact that some of the principal beneficiaries under the clean fuel regulations are the farmers across this country who put in ethanol, whether from the canola dynamic in western Canada or corn farmers in eastern Canada. This actually supports farmers. The Conservatives like to beat their chest and talk about how much they love farmers, but respectfully, I have not heard a whole lot of intelligent public policy from the Conservative benches on this. (1625) My question is, how would the Conservatives do it differently? I guess they would spend more taxpayer dollars to try to drive outcomes that were perhaps even less efficient. What happened to the idea of using the private sector and that private signals can drive the innovation outcome we want to see? I think it is important that we start to talk more about this in the country. The Conservatives like to quote seven cents to 17¢, which is from a PBO report. If we talk to the obligated parties under the clean fuel standard, they will tell us that it is not as high as what the PBO has quoted, yet that is what the Conservatives continue to use in the House. If there is a one-cent, two-cent or three-cent impact, that money, that industrial benefit, is staying in this country, where it is supporting farmers. We are seeing investments in Alberta, for example in Strathcona, where there is an ability to use that blended renewable diesel to reduce emissions, and the actual intrinsic benefits are staying in this country. We have a ton of Conservative MPs from Saskatchewan and Alberta. I was just in Calgary last week, with the Calgary Chamber of Commerce and the businesses there, talking about the importance of clean fuel regulations. I was dealing with farmers at the Calgary Stampede. They would talk to me about the importance of the clean fuel standard and biofuel policy in this country. I headed to Regina, where, again, real farmers in their communities were saying that this was absurd. The Conservatives love to say these are lobbyists, but, no, these are farmers. I think it is important that both major parties start to get aligned in this public policy, because at the end of the day, all the Conservatives are doing is undermining a policy that reduces emissions in this country and has one of the key benefits to farm gate policy in western and eastern Canada, Quebec or Ontario. The Conservatives never mention that. They never talk about the fact that this comes back. The Conservatives are suggesting that we get rid of the clean fuel standard, which in my mind, in 2026, is akin to saying that we should bring back leaded fuel, that we remove the ability to reasonably clean up our fuel to make it even more fuel efficient, reduce emissions and have an industrial benefit in this country, that we take all of that away. Let us take away the certainty that has built over time so that we have seen the industrial benefit build up in the country. Then, let us go a step further with industrial pricing and the largest obligated parties in the country, the largest emitters, for whom we have a policy to be able to work to incentivize reduced emissions and remove probably one of the most effective public policies. I would remind them where industrial carbon pricing started in the country. It was in Alberta, under a Conservative government. It started these policies because it, operating under a different strain of conservatism, understood that this was important public policy to balance environmental progress and industrial competitiveness. I have a question for the Conservatives. Hopefully, many of my colleagues find me to be a pragmatic sort in the House. I understand we have to balance competitiveness and the factors we have in place, but I would humbly suggest, where is their reasonable public policy? Is it to spend billions of dollars in their platform and have none of the other regulatory tools that can help drive industrial benefit? Then they would be talking out of both sides of their mouths, because they ought to tell Canadians about the true cost to them and what the tax increases would have to be to afford that level of public spending. Why do the Conservatives not support a policy that is regulatory? If we talk to the obligated parties, they would tell us that it is not seven cents a litre, but even if it is two, three or four cents a litre, it is driving industrial benefits. It is driving jobs in this country. It is supporting farmers in this country. What do the hon. opposition and the Conservative Party stand for? I know it has been an interesting time for the Conservative Party over the last number of months, but I really hope that the members, for whom I have great respect, and I know some better than others, will take it upon themselves to challenge the leadership of the Conservative Party, because there needs to be more thoughtful public policy. While I am on the topic of farmers and talking biofuel policy, which obviously is connected to the debate, and for which I have stood up in this House consistently, I remember the day to this moment. It was April 17, 2025. I was briefly the minister of agriculture in the Prime Minister 's last government. We were at the Canadian Federation of Agriculture debate. I would humbly suggest that the Liberal Party of Canada had a more comprehensive plan for farmers in the last platform. We can talk about that and what we are doing. I really respect the member for Foothills. He is a great guy and a great champion for Canadian agriculture. Sadly, he literally had nothing to work with. I know my hon. colleague from the B.C. interior will have to litigate that with the member for Foothills, but I like the guy. Sadly, he had nothing to work with, because the Conservative platform had nothing substantive for farmers, nothing on business risk management programs and nothing on the Canadian Agricultural Loans Act and how we can increase that. Those were things that we had. Their platform had nothing on AgriMarketing and what we are doing to support commodities. (1630) The member for Brandon—Souris talked about expanding markets. I am proud to say that I was with the Prime Minister in January, and the Premier of Saskatchewan in September. I am proud that we have re-established seven billion dollars' worth of agricultural market access. Seafood in my neck of the woods in Atlantic Canada is deeply important, and that is back. Respectfully, Conservatives need to open their eyes. This is what we are doing. By the way, I know the member knows that, because when I am in the communities in western Canada, they are recognizing it. People who by no means have been long-time supporters of the Liberal Party are saying that they like what they are seeing from the Prime Minister. They like what they are seeing from the government, but that to me is the dynamic. Industrial carbon pricing is a policy where in many cases the provincial governments have taken on the responsibility of administering these programs and have the ability to move forward. Okay, that is great. Hypothetically, let us cut it all. Let us get rid of it all. I guess the position of the Conservative Party is that we ought to just spend billions upon billions. Economists say that is the most ineffective way to drive the outcomes we may care about, where we do have to be mindful in a world right now where, frankly, on the public policy spectrum of what is important geopolitically, right now it is defence. Countries and people want to make sure that we have the sovereign capacity at home. We are focused on that. We want to make sure we are building an economically resilient country. We are focused on energy development. The government is committed to that. I can point to examples like Bay du Nord in Atlantic Canada. By the way, I want to hear us talking more positively about the oil and gas sector in Atlantic Canada. These are some of the lowest-emission energy barrels, oil barrels, in the world. It can be done sustainably. There is an opportunity for that. Of course, we have to continue to drive emissions down. We have to continue to work on environmental outcomes, but this is a great Canadian success story. We talk a lot, and rightfully so, about the energy patch in Alberta and Saskatchewan. I am deeply proud as a Nova Scotian, and ultimately as a Canadian, about what that means, but we also have to talk about Atlantic Canada. Again, I struggle to be able to identify what the Conservative vision is for the country, other than to just get rid of everything and get rid of some of the policy that is actually driving industrial benefit. Let us just take emissions right out of it. Let us just pretend we do not care about the environment whatsoever. This is actually industrial policy. This is about creating investments. Strathcona Resources has a multi-billion-dollar investment in Alberta. Conservatives want to create the policy uncertainty that would kill those types of investments. The Conservative Party would like to do that, and I just struggle with it, so I appeal to my colleagues on the other side. I want to challenge the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot. I do not pretend to sit in the caucus meetings of the Conservative Party. I will have to try to get tidbits from other members to tell me what happens there, but I hope to God that they are challenging the member for Battle River—Crowfoot, notwithstanding that he represented Carleton in the last election. We are proud of our member for Carleton in this Parliament. However, the member who now represents Battle River—Crowfoot does not have much for farmers. Again, the policy of the Conservative Party at this point for Canadian farmers is to get rid of the industrial carbon price and the clean fuel standard, which actually support farmers in Western Canada. I do not know what else there is. Conservatives do not talk about business risk management. They do not talk about intergenerational transfer of farm assets. They do not talk about the things that we can do to protect land in the country. I do not see any of that kind of stuff. The member was standing there— An hon. member: Oh, oh! Hon. Kody Blois: Mr. Speaker, it was the member for Brandon—Souris, but there was nothing in the Conservative platform. He is but one member. It is the leader of the official opposition who controls that caucus with an iron grip. I remember a time when there were more independent Conservative members of Parliament. We have seen the ones who have actually been independent. They have crossed the floor to join our team and be able to drive Canada forward. At the end of the day, we do not see anything in the platform. I know I am getting a rise now. We know we are speaking truth in the House when the members look up from their computers. They are motivated by this speech. It is hitting a bit of a raw nerve, but at the end of the day, we have 10 minutes of questions. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that you should just recognize opposition members. I will ask the other members to stand down so we can have even more debate on this, but I know I have hit a nerve. I know I have hit a nerve because I am speaking truth. I am speaking truth to where we are at. The member for Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna is heckling. That is okay, though. That is good. I like to jeer him. I will give him credit. This is where I know we have agreement on the benefit of the Canadian— (1635) [Expand] The Deputy Speaker: We will have to continue with questions and comments to find that agreement. The hon. member for London Fanshawe. [Expand] Kurt Holman (London—Fanshawe, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I stand proudly for the constituents of London—Fanshawe, and I feel wonderful representing them. I recently canvassed in London—Fanshawe and heard the same concerns about affordability, the cost of living and even the cost of groceries at the local grocery store. The interesting part now is that as we are debating, the Liberal government proposes suspending some of the fuel taxes until September. The opposition, we Conservatives, offers a solution of suspending all fuel taxes to the end of 2026. My question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister is this. If their plan goes through, what do I tell the constituents of London—Fanshawe in October when the fuel taxes return and the cost of living goes up? [Expand] Hon. Kody Blois: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should tell his constituents that his own party's opposition day motion makes no recognition of what we are dealing with in the Middle East. He should tell his constituents back home in London—Fanshawe that the government has instituted a four-month excise tax freeze of about 10¢, which we know will be an important economic measure. He should tell his constituents in London—Fanshawe that the Conservative Party essentially stands for the return of putting leaded fuel in gas tanks. The Conservative Party is killing the policy and suggesting to stand against the clean fuel standard, which is good public policy to reduce emissions and supports farmers in southwestern Ontario; the member stands against that. Furthermore, although London—Fanshawe is a bit of a suburban riding, he should tell the people around in southwestern Ontario that the Conservative Party had absolutely nothing for Canadian farmers it its platform. I hope he encourages the member for Battle River—Crowfoot to rectify that in the days ahead. [Expand] Lori Idlout (Nunavut, Lib.): Uqaqtittiji, I really appreciated my colleague's early observation about the omission in this motion about what is going on in our current geopolitical environment. He rightly pointed out that the Conservatives are great at disinformation, misinformation and really fearmongering in Canadian society. I wonder if he can share with us how this motion ignores this, by omission. What would he tell the followers who keep following the Conservatives and what the impact of that omission is on disinformation, misinformation and the policies we discuss in the House of Commons? [Expand] Hon. Kody Blois: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I thank the member for Nunavut for her work in the House. We are very pleased to welcome her to the government side of the House. I have already witnessed her contribution in caucus. We are going to really rely upon her voice to be a very key contributor and champion, particularly around Arctic security and Arctic sovereignty. To be fair to her question, I do not have enough time, but I will say this. One thing that I know will matter to her constituents is we are proud of our 2% defence target spending. It had gone below 1% under the Conservatives, and we are spending billions of dollars to support Arctic security. I know the member will be a big part of that. [Expand] Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it was not that long ago that the leader of the official opposition was running on a campaign around axe the tax. He talked about how the sky was falling because of the carbon tax. What happened when the carbon tax was removed? Gas prices dropped for maybe a day or two then started increasing. What we have seen is gas prices skyrocketing. What is also skyrocketing is profits for big oil and gas. Today, the Liberals adopted another Conservative policy. They removed the carbon tax. Now they have removed the fuel excise tax. If the big oil and gas companies continue to have skyrocketing profits and the price of fuel goes up despite the fact that they are removing this tax, will they finally implement an excess profit tax on big oil and gas? (1640) [Expand] Hon. Kody Blois: Mr. Speaker, I know the constituents of Courtenay—Alberni will certainly appreciate what the government is doing today in removing the federal excise of 10¢ a litre for the next four months. We recognize what is happening in the Middle East. We know that has an impact. We are proud of the work we have done to drive affordability, some of which that member was involved in during last Parliament. The questions he asks are hypothetical. We do not know where we are at, necessarily, in terms of what is going to transpire in the next number of months. However, we are also working with energy companies across the country to be able to reinvest that profit that may materialize in the days ahead with projects like Pathways to be able to reduce emissions intensity in western Canada. I am a little disappointed in the leadership results of the NDP, because we have someone who is actually suggesting we should stop energy production in western Canada. I was on the ground with Albertan NDP members recently, and I can tell the House they are not happy with the direction of the new NDP leader. Although I have deep respect for that hon. member, I do not know if the direction of the new NDP federal leader is in the interest of the country at a moment where I think we need serious leadership. [Expand] Pat Kelly (Calgary Crowfoot, CPC): Mr. Speaker, many times in his speech and in comments after, this member seemed to be trying to equate the so-called clean fuel standard, as is their branding of it, with the removal of a toxin like lead from gasoline. It is an absurd comparison, and I would like him to really think about whether or not this is a proper comparison. The other problem that came up in his speech is how he repeatedly referred to the fuel standard, the industrial carbon tax and a series of other policies that make life more expensive for Canadians as drivers of investment in industrial policy. The government chased $200 billion out of the energy industry in its first parliament. This is a government that has been destroying investment in energy in Canada and leaving us with a system of regulation and government support for industry. We should be just getting government out of the way and allowing this industry to receive investment so we can truly build Canadians' energy sovereignty. I would ask him to comment on whether he really thinks the current clean fuel standard is the same as removing lead from gasoline. [Expand] Hon. Kody Blois: Mr. Speaker, there is a lot there, and I hope I will be given room. First of all, oil and gas production went up 34% in the last 10 years. I take notice from the last government. I would have liked to see a more competitive lens in terms of how we drive the energy sector. We have that now in the Prime Minister. We have that now in the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. They are working with the Government of Alberta. I have seen first-hand their work with the Government of Saskatchewan and others to drive Canada's energy sector. To reply to the hon. member and the way in which he has framed it, I do think there is a comparison, because when we think about the removal of lead from gasoline, it was around an environmental imperative. I hope we would agree that there ought to be work done to fight climate change and to reduce emissions, and that there is a parallel between that and the work we are doing to make fuels cleaner in this country by using things such as ethanol blends from Canadian farmers, including in western provinces, including the prairies. I had the opportunity to talk to farmers directly about the fact that this biofuel policy not only is reducing emissions, creating better environmental outcomes, similar to removing lead from gasoline in the 1980s under the former progressive conservative government, but is also important public policy. What I would respectfully ask the member back is, where is their plan? Their plan in April was to spend more taxpayer dollars to achieve less. How is that smart public policy on the Conservative side? [Translation ]

[Expand] Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to my colleague. I know my colleague and I know that he is very involved in agriculture. However, one thing surprises me. Today, he had an opportunity to give all farmers a break, especially transporters and everyone who works hard so that food at the grocery store is a little less expensive. Unfortunately, the Liberals deliberately chose to keep the bulk of all gas taxes for themselves instead of giving it back to Canadians. This shows once again that this government does not trust people to manage their own money. If the Liberals had followed the Conservative solution in its entirety, they would have removed all gas taxes so that people would have the opportunity to choose what they want to do with that money to make ends meet. Can my colleague explain to me why he ignored Canadians throughout his entire speech today? (1645) [Expand] Hon. Kody Blois: Mr. Speaker, today the Prime Minister announced a four-month suspension of the federal fuel excise tax. This is, of course, related to the circumstances in Iran and the situation in the Middle East. I am very proud of our plan for farmers across the country. With all due respect, when I reviewed the Conservative Party's election platform during the last election, I noticed that it contained no measures for farmers across the country, including in Quebec. I hope that my hon. colleague will raise that point with our hon. colleague from Battle River—Crowfoot to ensure that the Conservative Party has a stronger campaign platform. [English ]

[Expand] Dan Albas (Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the good people of Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna. I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Lethbridge. Today's debate is an important one because it goes directly to the affordability crisis Canadians are living through. Often in this place, along with much of the media, we tend to focus on things we most disagree on. Today I will start with what I hope we can agree on: Canadians are struggling with the rising cost of living. They want practical solutions that lower costs now. That brings me to fuel prices. In recent weeks, Canadians have seen sharp increases in the price of gasoline and diesel. Families felt it immediately, and so did farmers, truckers, tradespeople, small businesses and anyone who depends on transportation. Some will say that global events are to blame, and that may be true, but Canadians do not elect us to describe the problem and then do nothing. They elect us to find solutions. This is why the Conservative official opposition has led the debate on gas prices and affordability. We are not shrugging our shoulders while Canadians struggle, nor have we simply named the problem, but we have proposed solutions. What we are seeing, again and again, is that when Conservatives put forward solutions that work, reality catches up and the government is forced to change course. There is also a pattern Canadians can see clearly, which is the government consistently taking on only a fraction of the solution. On affordability, the Prime Minister removed the consumer carbon tax, but kept the industrial carbon tax and so-called clean fuel regulations, policies that continue to raise costs across the economy. On housing, instead of removing the GST completely to build supply, the government offered narrow measures that can increase demand without fixing the supply problem. On getting big projects built, the government asked for and received the support of the Conservatives to pass Bill C-5, but instead of designating and then streamlining these projects to get past the red tape, it has yet to designate a single project as a national interest project, as was named under the legislation. All of these are half measures that may create some headlines but limit the real-world impact to Canadians. That takes us to today's motion. The problem is clear: When costs surge due to higher fuel costs, the cost of everything rises, and when government adds layers of taxes and policy-driven costs on top of that surge, it makes a bad situation worse. Now we have a new development. The Prime Minister announced that the federal government will temporarily suspend the federal fuel excise tax on gasoline and diesel starting next week and lasting through the summer, but only to 10¢ a litre. That confirms what Conservatives have been saying all along: Taxes at the pump matter and Canadians need relief. Let me be clear: Canadians deserve relief. If the government finally takes a step in that direction, I think we should acknowledge it, but we will also point out what it has left on the table. If someone were to ask my constituents a simple question, would they rather have a plan that delivers about 25¢ a litre of relief for the rest of this year or a plan that delivers about 10¢ a litre for a few months, especially when higher prices mean that Ottawa collects more GST and corporate tax revenue, most Canadians would know the answer right away. They would prefer our plan. The question today before the House is whether we will do what Canadians need, not partially, temporarily or halfway, but with a plan that lowers costs across the economy and protects Canadians from price shocks beyond their control. Suspending only a small part of the tax temporarily while leaving these other federal charges and regulations in place is not a full solution. The Conservative official opposition proposes that we can and should do the following: Suspend all federal fuel excise tax and GST on gas and diesel and permanently eliminate the so-called clean fuel standard and the industrial carbon tax. If we take these steps, we could deliver meaningful and immediate relief at the pumps and reduce inflationary pressure throughout the supply chain. Why does fuel matter so much? Virtually everything in our Canadian economy moves by commercial trucking at some point in the delivery chain: goods, groceries, building supplies and services. If it moves, it usually moves on a truck. When fuel costs rise, shipping costs rise, and when shipping costs rise, the price of what Canadians buy rises. That is how inflation gets embedded in day-to-day life. (1650) It is not just trucking. Aviation, marine shipping and rail depend on fuel, as well as mines, forestry operations, major construction sites and heavy-duty equipment. Fuel is the major input cost across our entire economy. If we are serious about finding solutions to affordability, we cannot treat fuel costs as a small or isolated issue. Fuel costs drive the cost of living. I want to return to a point we often hear from the Prime Minister, that we should focus on the things that we can control here in Canada, not the things that we cannot. On that principle, I will agree. We cannot control global conflicts, international choke points or the decisions of other countries, but we can control federal taxes and policies that increase the costs here at home. So the question is simple. If the government now agrees that suspending the federal excise tax helps Canadians, why not also suspend the GST on gas and diesel? Why not remove policies that permanently drive up costs for Canadian industries and consumers? Why not do everything we can to control and to protect Canadians from what we cannot control? That is what this motion is about. It is also about recognizing when governments delay action, consequences are real and often permanent. Let me share a real example. At the end of 2025, the community of Crofton, British Columbia was devastated by the news that Domtar would permanently close the pulp mill in that community, costing about 350 well-paying jobs. It was a tragedy for those workers, their families and their community. Now, I am not going to claim that the closure was entirely the fault of government. It was not. However, did the government do everything it could have done to help prevent it? Well, the answer is no. What is telling is what happened next. Following this closure, the B.C. NDP government announced it would ease industrial carbon pricing for pulp mills going forward. Now, why did it do that? It was because it took a closure and job losses for government to recognize an economic reality. If costs are piled onto a sector that is not competing internationally, costs that competitors may not be paying, that sector can be made less competitive and there can be accelerated closures and job losses. For the people of Crofton, that response was too little, too late. That is exactly the risk when governments choose half measures and delay. They wait for harm to happen and then they say, “Oops, we had better fix that.” This House has a chance to act early, to choose solutions now, not apologies later. That is where the Conservative official opposition's role is clear, not just to name the problem but, whenever possible, to propose a solution. The government often tells Canadians it is focused on affordability, competitiveness and resilience. Those are fine words, but words do not lower a grocery bill or fill a fuel tank. If this government is serious, it can prove it today, not with slogans but with a vote. It could vote for measures that actually reduce costs. This should not be that complicated. Canadians want relief that is real, measurable and immediate. They want us to find solutions. They want us to reduce costs that government controls, especially when families are being squeezed. A temporary suspension of one tax is a start, but Canadians deserve a full plan, a plan like ours. That is what the official opposition is proposing. This is our chance to show Canadians we hear them. This is a chance to put solutions ahead of excuses. This is our chance to vote for affordability. All we have to do is vote in favour of this motion. It is really that simple. (1655) [Expand] Hon. Kody Blois (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment my colleague for his remarks. We both come from wine regions. Consistently, in my time in this place, he has been a champion for the Canadian wine sector. We have collaborated on a few pieces, so I do want to recognize him for that. Around the clean fuel standard, I have equated it to the fact of the Conservatives wanting to put lead back into gas tanks or the industrial carbon pricing. I mean, these are ways to be able to reduce emissions and to work around industrial build-out. Could the member just explain to me whether the Conservatives have any policy about reducing GHG emissions in the country? If not, is their plan to do what was actually proposed in the platform of April 2025, which was to spend billions upon billions of dollars, which is ultimately a cost to the taxpayer and has an impact on constituents in my riding and his? What is it? Can he flesh out a little where the Conservatives actually stand in this area? [Expand] Dan Albas: Mr. Speaker, let us start off with the so-called clean fuel standard. The previous minister of the environment, Catherine McKenna, under the Trudeau majority, originally started this. They actually said we should have one set of regulations to monitor solid, liquid and gaseous forms of energy. They wanted one ring to rule them all, one regulation to rule them all, and it became so burdensome and complicated that the government ended up shunting half of that framework away in favour of what we have now. Rather than working with industry on a technical solution that would see good things happen in this country, like, for example, the use of Canadian biofuels and those kinds of things, instead, it encouraged more importation from the Americans that is still being used today to fill it with some of the clean mandates that the government does. They are not only complicated and just pie in the sky, they actually make it where we are dependent on the Americans at a time we should be helping ourselves. [Expand] Andrew Lawton (Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have been soaking in the words of my colleague's brilliant speech on this, and I want to ask him about the strange pattern we have seen. Certainly ever since I became a member of Parliament, almost a year ago, the Liberals rail against a Conservative proposal. They will call it reckless and say all sorts of things about it. Then they will say that they are adopting it as their own, but not go all the way. We saw this with the carbon tax for years. They were prepared to lose an election on the carbon tax with their previous leader, but then only repealed a part of it. We now see that they are taking a Conservative proposal, but instead of cutting the 25¢ a litre that our plan would put forward, they are only giving Canadians a 10¢ break and for a shorter period of time. I am wondering what my colleague, who has been around here a lot longer than I have, thinks of this, what we can do to stop it and help Canadians for real. [Expand] Dan Albas: Mr. Speaker, I am going to offer my friend a very good piece of advice. He should not soak in anything that I say. There are many other speakers in this place he should marinate in. I will say this. At the end of the day, the government has an opportunity put before it. Time and time again, when Conservatives put forward great policies that are not only good for Canada but electorally popular, the government then implements a small part of them, and Canadians suffer because of that. We have fewer houses because of its plan and higher costs because of its industrial carbon tax. I hope that, in this case, Liberals can agree with Conservatives that affordability should be the main thing. They have an opportunity today to support a better solution. [Expand] Hon. Kody Blois (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is great. I enjoy being here. I love engaging with my Conservative colleagues. What I just heard from the hon. member on the question I asked was that he essentially talked about biofuel policy, and I have not heard the Conservatives talk about that. We obviously have a biofuel policy. It is around the clean fuel regulations. In fact, when I go to Calgary or Saskatchewan and talk to people across this country, such as the Grain Farmers of Ontario I just talked to, they say we need the clean fuel regulations because they are an important driver for farm gate revenue in those spaces. What I heard the member talk about is biofuel, mentioning the U.S. I guess he is getting down the line of spending more public money, because we can either regulate it or cap it. Where is the Conservative policy? Is it to spend more money in terms of taxpayers' dollars and subsidies to get to the same outcome? Is that what he is saying? (1700) [Expand] Dan Albas: Mr. Speaker, the member should know that supply chains take a while to react to certain things. The Trump administration stripped out a number of bipartisan policies that were put in place under a large budget measure a few years ago. It essentially took the carrots away for biofuel manufacturing that scaled up so massively. This is one of the reasons Canada continues to import a lot of its biofuels from outside the country: to be able to fill the so-called clean fuel standards that are here today. These guys have not done so much, as the Americans have taken away those carrots. [Expand] Rachael Thomas (Lethbridge, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise again on behalf of the wonderful people of Lethbridge, Alberta, and to have the chance to voice my concerns for them. Recently, in my riding, a vegetable-processing plant called Nortera announced that it would be closing its doors. This is significant, because it impacts families in my riding. That is 70 jobs that will be lost, and in a small city of about 115,000 people, that is a big loss. However, in addition to that, it also impacts the farmers who grow the food that is processed at this plant. Those farmers were growing for Nortera and now will no longer be able to do so. As such, they will now have to go and secure other contracts. We asked this company why it made the decision that it did. It was finding that it was not competitive. It decided to move out of its Canadian base and into other countries, including the United States, because there it found it had a competitive edge. “Competitive edge” is a very important term when it comes to our country and its way forward. Right now, Canadians are being put at a significant disadvantage and, of course, the fuel tax plays a big role. There are many who would argue that it is eroding Canada's competitiveness. When we do not have that, jobs are lost and money flows elsewhere. A little over a year ago, taking his cue from President Trump, the Prime Minister held a photo opportunity. With a sharpie in his hand, he signed away the carbon tax, or so he said. However, in actuality, while the Liberals would like Canadians to believe that it is gone, it is not, and we have heard that from Liberal members across the aisle here today. They have admitted as much, that the carbon tax is still very much alive and well. It just has a new name. We have the industrial carbon tax, and now we have the fuel standard tax. That is what we like to call it, is it not? The effect is the same. They call it a different name, but at the end of the day, it is costing Canadians a whole lot of money, and it is putting businesses out. This is a problem. It is a problem for Canadians today, but it is a problem for our future as a nation as well. In other countries, people have been quick to realize that taxes on fuel actually have a big impact on their ability to be competitive and their ability to maintain their citizens, so they have taken concrete measures to reduce those taxes and bring back that competitive edge. As prices have risen, they have taken steps to ease the burden on consumers by reducing fuel taxes. For example, in Australia, they cut their excise tax in half for three months, reducing their cost of fuel by 26.3¢ per litre. In Spain, they cut their taxes, saving up to 30¢ at the pump. In Ireland, they cut theirs as well, by 20¢ on diesel and 15¢ on gasoline. There are other countries that have done away with the carbon tax altogether, such as Australia, because they know it is just nonsense. It claims to accomplish something for the good of the environment, but actually the measures prove otherwise. It is not meeting the metrics that it promised. People are certainly being punished, and businesses are certainly going without that competitive edge that they deserve to have. Today, the Liberals have continued their pattern of those flashy photo opportunities that we saw the Prime Minister take advantage of approximately a year ago, when he took out his big sharpie and signed that agreement claiming that the carbon tax was gone, but it is not, so here we are again. The Prime Minister announced his half-measure, saying that he would reduce costs a bit for Canadians. He would reduce costs by taking a bit off at the gas pumps, but only until Labour Day or for a few months. However, that is not what Conservatives are proposing, and that is not what Canadians are requesting. Canadians need much more if they are to be well served by the policies of the government. Over a decade of punitive fuel taxes has taken a real toll on Canadians, placing growing strain on businesses across the country. In fact, today there were just a couple of articles that were released expressing the views of leaders within oil and gas. They would say that these taxes are actually “eroding” Canada's ability to compete or, in other words, doing away with it and making us weaker. This is a shame, because at this point in time in history, we need Canada's oil and gas like nobody's business, and we have the ability to be strong. We have the ability to compete. We have the ability to be an answer in a world that is extremely troubled at the moment. We produce oil and gas with the greatest environmental standards in the world, with respect for human dignity and with high pay. That is amazing. That is a good story. Why are we not proud of that and wanting that to flourish? (1705) Canadian industries are at a clear disadvantage as the Liberals continue to pile on costs. Of course, it means, then, that we do in fact lose our competitive edge. Sadly, the Liberal damage does not stop there. It does not stop at the area of industry, and it does not stop at the farm gate. It gets passed down to the moms and dads, the grandmas and grandpas, the aunts and uncles and the students who are driving places or have to heat their homes or buy groceries or household goods. It gets passed all the way down to them. They feel it when they are trying to get to work. They feel it when they are trying to heat their home. They feel it when they are just trying to go grocery shopping to fill their fridge. Canadians are feeling the pain of the Liberal government's bad policies. The sad thing is that we are seeing the consequences. In my riding, we are watching as people are lining up at the food bank in a way we have never seen before, but we are not the only community where this is the case. Communities across the country are witnessing this. Further to that, we are seeing a massive increase in child poverty. Again, our community is hard hit, but we are not the only ones. Across this country, the amount of child poverty is up. If there is anything that should tug at the heart of a Liberal, I would hope it would be that. For us to allow our children to go without proper nourishment, to allow them to go without proper housing and proper care, is a problem. If the government members are willing to turn a blind eye to that, then shame on them. This is why a Liberal press conference with half-hearted measures simply will not do the trick. That is more about image than about substance. It is more about the Prime Minister 's upholding his own title than about caring for the Canadian people, and that is a problem. Last week, when he was asked to respond to the rising gas prices, the Prime Minister replied, somewhat naively, “Well, I wonder what can be done about that.” It was as if he had never thought of it before. Of course, why would he? Financially, he is well established. He is certainly not feeling the pain. It also goes to the heart of the matter, which is the fact that the Prime Minister and, I dare say, the current government have not considered everyday Canadians and how they are impacted by these punitive taxes. Canadians deserve more. They deserve more than the half measures that the government has to offer, so the Conservatives have put forward a solution. In fact, we put it forward a long time ago. We have been calling on the government to remove the fuel tax for the entire year, at a minimum. We have asked the Liberals to remove the GST on gasoline and diesel. We have asked the government to permanently take away the fuel standard tax and to permanently remove the industrial carbon tax. In doing these things, we would be more competitive on a business front, and everyday Canadians would be well served because life would become more affordable. These are good, solid policy measures that would serve Canadians well. Therefore, instead of fruitless photo ops, we would ask the members opposite to give consideration to the true needs of Canadians and to vote in favour of the changes that we have put forward here today, for the sake of our country and for the sake of those who call this place home. There is a real opportunity here to deliver relief to Canadians, to make sure that they are taken care of and that they are put at the forefront. Canadians are not asking for special treatment. They are just asking for fairness. They are asking to be competitive. They are asking to have an opportunity to play on the world stage when they run businesses. The mom who is going to the pumps and filling up her minivan so she can take her kids to sports or school is just asking for a bit of fairness, a bit of relief. The grandma or grandpa who is having a hard time paying their heating bill is just asking for a bit of fairness, a bit of relief. The student who is having a hard time, because they are unemployed thanks to the government, filling their vehicle in order to make it to class is just asking for a bit of fairness, a bit of relief. It is not much. Therefore, we would call on the government to do the measurable thing, do the right thing and act on behalf of Canada, to go all the way, with no more half measures. (1710) [Expand] The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? Some hon. members: Question. The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair. [Expand] Chris Bittle: Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded division. [Expand] The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, April 15, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions. [Expand] Chris Bittle: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 5:30 p.m. so we can start Private Members' Business. [Expand] The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Private Members' Business

[Private Members' Business]

[Translation ]

Youth Criminal Justice Act

The House resumed from December 8, 2025, consideration of the motion that Bill C-231, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee. [Expand] Laila Goodridge (Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill C‑231, a bill for David's friends. This bill, introduced by my colleague and friend, the member for Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière, in honour of his son David, seeks to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act. David left us too soon. He was way too young. I want to take this opportunity to thank my colleague and his lovely wife Caro for courageously taking the initiative to share their story and that of their beloved son. Passing this bill could help many young Canadians who are struggling with addictions. [English ]

In my previous role as shadow minister for addictions, I saw first-hand the chaos and destruction that addiction can cause in the lives of those struggling with the disease, as well as in the lives of their families and communities. I met individuals whose lives had been profoundly disrupted by substance use, where stable employment, housing and relationships had completely eroded over time. I also heard from parents, partners and children who were left to cope with uncertainty, fear and repeated cycles of crisis, relapse, overdose and recovery attempts. These experiences underscored how addiction is not an isolated issue but one that affects the entire family system and places significant strain on frontline services such as health care, law enforcement and social services. Today I am going to share a story that is very personal. I want to profoundly thank my brother for allowing me to tell a part of his story. My brother Brent started using drugs at 14, while he was in high school, shortly after our mom's death from cancer. What started as teenagers being teenagers very quickly changed. He quickly fell into addiction, using drugs to get through classes and just to get by. He was in the world of addiction and active drug use for over a decade, a decade where he struggled to feel normal, a decade stuck. The only way he felt normal was when he was using drugs, through high school and just barely surviving. Through his decade of active drug use, he had many run-ins with the law. As a family, there was so much stress and so many sleepless nights wondering where he was, how he was doing and if he would ever find a path to recovery. I told him about the bill and asked him about his thoughts. He liked it. He thought it would be a good idea and that it very well might have helped him when he first started on his path of addiction. He shared with me that he often wonders what his life would have looked like had he been offered treatment after his first run-in with the law as a minor, how much further ahead he would be had he not lost that decade stuck in addiction, had he been able to get the help he needed sooner. After many years of struggle, he accepted that he had a problem, and he started his journey toward recovery. It was not a straight line, and it took so much work, but he put in the work. I am so incredibly proud to share that my baby brother is now in recovery from addiction and that he is over a year sober today. He is doing so well. He is in his first year of trade school as a plumber-steamfitter. He is literally and figuratively helping build Canada and build what we need, and showing that recovery is possible every single day. These experiences have reinforced the importance of a compassionate, evidence-based response that prioritizes immediate safety and also long-term pathways to recovery, recognizing that addiction is a complex health condition. Early intervention in youth addiction is critical because it can significantly improve long-term outcomes by preventing experimentation from developing into entrenched substance use. When we look at Bill C-231, that idea really sits at the centre of what meaningful reform should achieve, helping young people earlier. Why not? Most youth who come into contact with the justice system are not simply offenders. That was not the case for my brother. He was struggling with addiction, trauma and mental health challenges, and he needed someone to see him. He needed our justice system to offer him the support he needed, and that would have been addiction treatment. If the only response is punitive, we risk missing the chance to actually change the trajectory of their lives. (1715) Adolescence is a window where intervention can genuinely work, where relationships, supports and treatment can redirect a young person before more patterns set in. Strengthening the Youth Criminal Justice Act in this way would reflect a more realistic and humane understanding of what kids need: timely support, accountability paired with rehabilitation, and coordinated services that address the root cause. Done properly, early intervention gives young people a real shot at stability, recovery and a future that looks very different from the path they were on. This is one example where Alberta provides a powerful example through our PChAD, protection of children abusing drugs, program. Under PChAD, families in Alberta have a legal option where young people in severe substance use can get involuntary treatment. Families can apply to the court for help, and, importantly, the system responds in a way that is focused on stabilization and recovery, not punishment. When a judge issues a PChAD order, the young person can be placed in a structured, supervised setting where immediate safety is addressed. Withdrawal can be managed, if necessary, and a clear pathway into treatment is created. It also brings families into the process in a meaningful way, rather than leaving them isolated and overwhelmed while trying to manage a crisis at home. The practical outcomes are significant and very real. It means that a parent is not left alone, wondering whether their child will survive another night out in crisis. It also means that police are not repeatedly acting as the default responders to what is fundamentally a health issue. It means that emergency departments are not becoming the only safety net available. It means that young people are given a real opportunity to pause, to stabilize and to engage with treatment before their situation becomes worse. PChAD is not perfect. No program is. However, it reflects an important principle: When addiction is present in a young person's life, early structured interventions can change outcomes. I have met some of the children who went through this program, and it changed their life. Recovery is in fact possible. I am encouraging all my colleagues to consider supporting the bill and giving kids across Canada some of the support that is available if they happen to be lucky enough to be from Alberta. The same principle is what is here in Bill C-231. It is trying to bring more consistency into the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The bill asks us to recognize something simple, which is that for many young people, addiction is not separate from their contact with the justice system. It is often at the centre of it. If we treat each court appearance as an isolated event, we miss the pattern and we miss the chance to intervene. The legislation is about connecting these dots. It would ensure that when the justice system sees a pattern, it could respond, and with more than repetition. It could respond with treatment, structure and a path towards recovery. Members of the House all come with different perspectives, but we share one basic responsibility. We are here to make decisions that affect real people, especially young people who are struggling and still have a chance to turn their life around. Every single person has a chance to turn their life around, but why are we not affording this to the youth in our country? The bill is not asking us to choose between accountability and compassion. It is asking us to finally align them in a way that reflects reality. Young people need both structure and support. Families need options, not hopelessness. Our justice system needs tools to match the complexity of what it is seeing. That is what Bill C-231 offers: a practical step towards a system that intervenes earlier, connects better and gives young people a real chance at direction. One thing I will share is that recovery takes a lot of work. People who choose recovery are some of the bravest people I have ever had the chance to encounter. This is not them taking the easy way out; this is them doing the hardest work possible. What the bill from my colleague, the member for Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière, is proposing is simply allowing these kids to put in the hard work and get their life back on track. I am going to close by saying this. If there is still time to help a young person turn their life around, we have the responsibility to try. Why would we not, for David, for the friends of David and for every family still hoping for a different outcome? (1720) [Translation ]

For David, for all of David's friends and for all the families across Canada hoping for a different outcome, we should pass this bill. [Expand] Marianne Dandurand (Compton—Stanstead, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and speak to private member's Bill C‑231, which would amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act. For brevity's sake, I will refer to the act by its acronym, the YCJA. I would like to salute the work of my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière, whose riding neighbours mine. Tragic circumstances led him to work on this incredibly important bill. I would like to thank him for working on it and for his remarkable dedication to our young people and to changing lives, families and communities. I would like to show that the bill's underlying goal is entirely commendable, considering that its aim is to amend the YCJA to strengthen the approach to addiction treatment program in its enforcement framework. Bill C-231 reflects the lived realities and daily challenges facing certain young Canadians. In Canada, youths aged 15 to 24 are more likely to experience mental health and substance-related disorders than any other age group. According to the Canadian Student Tobacco, Alcohol and Drugs Survey, 37% of students in grades 7 to 12—secondary school to residents of Quebec—reported that they had consumed alcohol in the past year. Over the same period, 18% of students had used cannabis, 6% had used prescription drugs in a manner other than prescribed, and 7% had used illegal drugs. Even more troubling was the fact that 22% of students reported having used two substances at the same time during their lifetime, while 18% had done so in the previous 12 months. Those are big numbers. In our ridings, what they represent are the effects of substances on young lives, families and communities, and some people looking for solutions. I want to salute the work of organizations in my riding, such as Virage Santé mentale, L'Éveil, Phelps Aide, Mental Health Estrie and addiction rehab centres. Despite having very few resources, these folks work miracles to help young people. This is essential work, and it is even more desperately needed in the regions, where resources are limited, everyone knows everyone and accessing available resources is not always easy. Having more legislative tools to support youth and families is, as I said, of tremendous importance. In this context, Bill C‑231 proposes to highlight and, in some cases, clarify the measures governing addiction treatment programs for teenagers. For example, it would require police officers to consider whether it would be appropriate to refer a young person suspected of a drug offence to an addiction treatment program before initiating or pursuing legal proceedings against that individual. The bill also proposes to allow, in certain cases, the youth court to delay sentencing to give the individual the opportunity to participate in an addiction treatment program. It also proposes to amend the YCJA to authorize the youth court to include, in certain orders, an obligation to participate in such a program. Finally, it provides that a mere failure or refusal to comply with this condition shall not result in a custodial sentence. As we all know, the YCJA establishes a separate legal framework for young persons who have committed or are accused of committing a criminal offence, a framework that takes into account that they are more vulnerable, are still developing, and are still dependent on adults. One of the fundamental principles of the YCJA is to protect the public while promoting the rehabilitation and social reintegration of young offenders. It also emphasizes the importance of preventing crime by referring young offenders to community programs or organizations to address the underlying causes of their behaviour. (1725) Bill C-231 is consistent with these fundamental principles of the youth criminal justice system, and the government intends to support it while proposing certain amendments in committee. In my view, this bill would benefit from certain amendments to better achieve its objectives. For example, one of the changes proposed in Bill C‑231 would impose a new requirement for police officers to determine whether it would be appropriate to refer a young person, with their consent, to an addiction treatment program before initiating or pursuing legal proceedings. Bill C‑231 could be slightly expanded so that this requirement also applies to Crown prosecutors. This would further encourage the use of addiction treatment programs and referrals to those programs. This approach would also be consistent with Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, which proposes to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act to specify that prosecutors must consider extrajudicial measures before initiating or pursuing legal proceedings. This requirement already exists for police officers under section 6 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The YCJA also recognizes that diversion measures are often considered the most appropriate and effective solution for addressing youth crime. They allow for prompt and tailored interventions aimed at addressing the root causes of delinquent behaviour. Extending this requirement to the prosecutor could help further encourage the use of substance abuse treatment programs both before and after charges are laid. That said, it is important for the youth justice system to adopt a targeted approach to diversion for drug-related offences. The offences for which police officers and prosecutors should be required to consider referral to a substance use treatment program should be simple possession offences. More specifically, they should be limited to the possession offences set out in subsection 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and subsection 8(1) of the Cannabis Act. This would align the proposed amendments to the YCJA with the diversion measures added to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act in 2022. More specifically, these measures include issuing a warning or referring the person, with their consent, to a program or organization that can help them. However, these measures may only be applied to persons suspected of having committed a simple possession offence. The bill also proposes amending certain provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act to add guidelines and orders that apply exclusively to substance abuse treatment programs. This more restrictive approach carries certain risks. On the one hand, it could lead to unintended and adverse interpretations that might limit access to other types of treatment programs, particularly those focused on mental health or on behaviour modification and skills development. One of the reasons this bill is so important is that it highlights the critical intersection between the criminal justice system and public health. However, public health issues are not limited to substance abuse. For example, in Canada, people living with mental health conditions are also overrepresented in the criminal justice system. For some of the proposed amendments, referring more broadly to treatment programs rather than solely to programs for addiction or substance abuse would allow the bill's objective to be maintained while avoiding the unintended exclusion of other important forms of treatment. For example, a broader approach would clarify that youth courts may defer sentencing to allow a youth to participate in various types of treatment programs, rather than limiting this option solely to substance abuse treatment programs. Bill C‑231 pursues an important goal: to help young people struggling with problematic substance use access treatment programs so they can receive care rather than be punished by the justice system. It supports many of our election promises, with approaches that divert youth away from crime by providing urgent and immediate support to address the overdose crisis while protecting the public. For these reasons, the government is prepared to support this bill, while proposing certain amendments to strengthen its objectives and expand its scope. (1730) [Expand] Rhéal Éloi Fortin (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I did not have the pleasure or honour of knowing David, but I do have the pleasure of knowing his father. We do not always see eye to eye, but I have a great deal of respect and a deep affection for him. I am pleased to speak to this bill on behalf of the Bloc Québécois. I can say straight away that we will be supporting Bill C-231. Having read it, I would say that this is part of the Bloc's DNA. Since its inception, the Bloc Québécois has consistently supported diversion measures. The Bloc Québécois believes in rehabilitation. Obviously, there are cases where imprisonment is necessary and where a firm hand is required. The Criminal Code is there for a reason, and that is a good thing. Our prisons serve a purpose, but we must be cautious. We must not treat them as a panacea. Imprisoning someone is not always a useful, or the most useful, option. Because they are younger, our young people in particular are, by nature, less experienced and less mature. They are more likely to make mistakes, sometimes minor, but sometimes more serious. In either case, as a society, we must be compassionate and seek to guide them back onto the right path rather than imprisoning them in a system that may be difficult to break free from afterwards. We had similar discussions back then on Bill C-5. These discussions were not always easy, and we, the Bloc Québécois, supported diversion. When I read Bill C-231, it seemed like a second chance to revisit this issue in a useful way, not only for the courts as a whole, but most of all, for our young people. Addiction is less a legal issue than a medical issue. Locking someone up in prison for any amount of time will not cure an addiction. Treatment, however, can. Does treatment always work? No, certainly not, but does that mean that treatment is not worth trying? Whether the child involved is our child, or the child of a loved one, a neighbour, a friend or a complete stranger, rehabilitation is a worthwhile investment for any child struggling with addiction. It may not work, and at some point, it may be necessary to admit defeat and opt for harsher measures like incarceration or other alternatives. However, when a young person is struggling with this kind of problem, enlisting measures outside the legal system is not only our duty, it serves our interests as a society. The Bloc Québécois believes in rehabilitation, for both adults and young people. However, does a society have to invest billions of dollars to build prisons and hire guards to keep people who have committed crimes within its walls? In some cases, I would say yes, but in many others, I would say no. Even when it comes to adults struggling with addiction, the Bloc Québécois has often said that these are cases in which diversion measures should be attempted. It is more profitable for society, more compassionate toward society as a whole and more effective, but especially when we are talking about youth rather than adults. Our young people need love. I think that Bill C‑231 offers that. We wholeheartedly support our colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière on this bill. (1735) I was listening to our Liberal colleague, who may have been hinting at the government's intention to propose certain amendments. There may indeed be some amendments. That said, I am pleased to see that all members of the House are on board with this idea, without division or partisanship, which is unfortunately often unhealthy. It is not because of ill will, but rather because we are often bound by the constraints of party platforms and campaign promises. That is the nature of the beast. We are here because we were elected on different platforms, and we need to stand up for our ideas. However, there are instances like this one where the principles we uphold allow us to find common ground on a specific issue. That is the case here. I wonder whether we are dealing with a bill that could be one of the few opportunities we have to proceed by unanimous consent, or whether we could even fast-track it. I would love to see this bill come into force this spring, or as soon as possible. As I said, I never had the pleasure of meeting David, but I would like to close by wishing him all the best. I congratulate my friend on his bill. (1740) [Expand] Gabriel Hardy (Montmorency—Charlevoix, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to a topic that we often avoid discussing because it makes us uncomfortable. We do not like talking about it, but it is impossible to ignore: the distress among young people. As some members have already mentioned, 20% of young people experience mental health problems before the age of 18. It is therefore extremely important for us to address it. These mental health problems will indirectly or perhaps too quickly result in addiction disorders that can often lead to preventable tragedies. As everyone knows, these things are happening and are present in schools, in some families and in ridings across Canada. Too often, however, our response falls short. As parents, we may not have the knowledge to deal with the situation. Even experts have limited time and resources. We are having a hard time addressing this ever-growing problem. The problem is that we continue to look at what young people are doing without really trying to understand what they are going through. In some cases, they are suffering. Their suffering is expressed through actions and behaviours, and sometimes also through substance use. For many young people, substance use is not just a matter of curiosity. It is not just something they do because others do it, on a temporary basis, just to try it out or to have an experience. For some, it is a way of managing something that is hurting them. For some, it is a way of holding on, of continuing to move forward despite that pain. Some young people have difficulty sleeping and are experiencing severe anxiety. They do not really understand what is going on in their heads. As we know, young people's brains are not yet fully developed. They do not necessarily have enough life experience to draw on to reassure themselves and tell themselves that things will be fine in the end. Some of them at a certain point, in their daily reflections or when they discover drugs, for example, find something that brings them peace. It is not a perfect or healthy solution, and some young people know that. However, it is enough to help them carry on. It is a solution that may be temporary, but all too often it becomes permanent. This is often how it starts. From that point on, using drugs becomes a response. It is not the right response, but it is one that is accessible, easy and consistent. Meanwhile, support systems are difficult to access. There are waiting lists. Services vary from region to region. Parents are seeking help without really knowing where to turn. People are ill-informed, perhaps ill-equipped. Meanwhile, the substance is always there. It is readily available, without the need for an appointment. Access to it is consistent. The substance is attentive and non-judgmental. These young people end up becoming dependent on it. We adults mean well. Professionals want to step in, but they often arrive too late, after a crime has been committed, after an arrest has been made. We often arrive once things have already spiralled out of control. How do we answer the call? We respond with a criminal justice approach, one that is not based on the young person's needs. We intervene based on the actions taken, but we do not really focus on what lies behind them. It is a band-aid solution. Yet, if there is one thing that is absolutely essential, in my view, it is prevention. Prevention should always be a top priority. Prevention is precisely about preventing these problems whether they involve physical or mental health. If we, as a society, fail to take preventive measures, we should stop being surprised when they happen again. We must have the courage to acknowledge that the current model has its limitations. It is not because practitioners are not doing their jobs, but because, given its current structure, the system always responds too late, and often in the wrong place. That is exactly why my colleague's Bill C‑231 is so important. It introduces something we have not done enough of so far. It allows us to take a step back and ask what would happen if, instead of simply punishing people, we actually helped them. In practical terms, what is the purpose of this bill? This bill would make it possible to delay sentencing so a young person can participate in treatment. It would make it possible to include treatment in the judge's decision, and that treatment could solve the problem. Most of all, the bill sends a very important message: A young person who does not succeed on the first try should not be put directly in custody, because the fact is that treatment can be a long and winding road. (1745) Treatment involves relapses, setbacks and times when it is just not working, but that does not mean a young person has failed. It means they are going through a process, and the system should be able to understand that. This bill is telling us that we have to make a choice. We have to enact a law, and we have to make a choice about that law. Either we carry on with a problem-based approach, or we adopt a needs-based approach. This is a political and incredibly important choice. An young person's brain is impressionable and can be easily molded. It is still able to create good reflexes and find good ways of dealing with problems. However, when the window closes, we often lose the young person and we lose them for a long time. Indeed, we need to pass this bill, but we also need to have the courage to go further. We need to make sure that services are available. We need to train case workers and ensure that programs are available across the country. Above all, we need to stop working in silos. That is key. Too often, today, justice works on one side, health works on another side, and social services is somewhere in there. In the middle is the young person and their loved ones, if they are lucky enough to have loved ones. All these professionals have to navigate a system that is not made for the young person. The young person also has to navigate a system that is not made for them. However, let us be honest. Passing a bill without providing the necessary resources will not change much. If we tell a young person that they need to seek treatment but they have to wait three, six or 12 months, in reality, we are telling them that we are not ready for them right now. Timing is very important in a young person's life. Windows of opportunity may open, but they can close pretty quickly too. I think we need to do better. What we are seeing is only part of the story. Substance use and crime are part of the story, just the tip of the iceberg. Beneath that, there are other issues. There is distress. There is trauma and there are needs that are not being met. If we do not address those issues, we will not solve the root of the problem. We need to intervene early. Intervening early is not about leniency. It is about effectiveness. Prevention means preventing problems from recurring. It means avoiding situations that could escalate and preventing lives from going off track. Yes, the legal system can sometimes become a tipping point, but why wait until that happens? Why is the government waiting for things to fall apart before taking action? No young person, in my opinion, chooses to suffer. I think these actions are signals. They are attempts to cope, attempts that may be clumsy and even dangerous at times, but they are attempts nonetheless. I believe our role is to provide the best possible response. There are people involved in this work on a daily basis. As parliamentarians, we do not know everything. We are not experts on every aspect of society. We therefore need to rely on key experts. I had the opportunity turn to Geneviève Labbé, a psychoeducator. She is in charge of clinical addiction education, but more importantly, she has 20 years of experience. That means 20 years of guiding young people, 20 years of supporting families and 20 years of seeing what works and what does not work. My entire speech is based on my conversations with her. She reminded me of something extremely important: For every young person, there is a young person not doing well, who has needs and who needs support. Often, it is a young person who can still be helped. Today, the bill is giving us an opportunity to do things differently. It may not be perfect, but it will be different. We have a choice to act consistently, more humanly and more effectively. Essentially, the question is simple: Do we act while there is still time, or do we keep waiting until it is too late? Helping a young person today does not just solve a problem, it changes a trajectory. I think that changing a trajectory is vitally important. (1750) [Expand] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière has five minutes for his right of reply. [Expand] Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière, CPC): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank all my colleagues who have spoken about Bill C-231. Honestly, it warms my heart to see that MPs here in the House are able to take such a common-sense approach to a difficult bill. The discussions have been taking young people into account and taking resources into account as well. So many people have had personal experience with this. That is what I have observed since I first spoke about this bill. So many people have had experiences with young people who have struggled with addiction that it has opened my eyes and allowed me to say that we are on the right track. I am not alone in this. My wife, Caro, my daughters, Marie-Soleil and Justine, our grandchildren and all our loved ones are in it with me. Caro recently had the opportunity to appear on a one-hour podcast where she talked about her experience. It was a Fondation VIVERE podcast. Since, unlike her, I am fortunate enough to have the opportunity to speak here, I want to tell people to go and listen to that podcast if they have some free time. They will see the other side of the story, that of a mother who is also going through these hard times. I want to thank Caro for her support and, as she said in the podcast, we are looking forward now, even though it is hard. If we manage to save even one young person through all of these efforts that we are making, then we will be happy. We will have accomplished something all together. The goal is to save as many young people as possible, but as long as we save the life of even one young person and give them a future, then we will know that we made the right decision and that we did our jobs as parliamentarians by improving laws to help people. I want to thank the Bloc Québécois members from Laurentides—Labelle, Abitibi—Témiscamingue and Rivière‑du‑Nord. I also want to thank the member for South Shore—St. Margarets, the member for Argenteuil—La Petite‑Nation and the member for Compton—Stanstead who spoke today. I want to thank my Conservative colleagues, including the member for Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford and the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, who, by the way, shared an account about her own family today for the first time since she has been a member of Parliament. Although she is our party's critic for addictions, she never shared that story. That is the goal. We need to talk about it, break the secrecy and ensure we understand the issues, that we talk about them and that we find solutions together. I also want to thank my colleague, the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix, who is a strong believer in prevention. As a society, we have to do more to stop young people from ending up where so many end up today. Once they are in the system, we need to help them get out. That is what Bill C-231, the friends of David act, is all about. The bill is called that for a reason. There are thousands of young people in Canada, like David, who will one day face the justice system because their lives have been literally consumed by drugs. Whether by choice or because of the influence of their peers, not everyone will react the same way, unfortunately. Some will remain in control of their drug use, while others, unfortunately, will become controlled by it. When addiction takes over, sadly, the downward spiral happens fast. How can a minor pay for what they consume when they are underage and have no income, no wages? Obviously, they will do so by committing crimes. This becomes a vicious cycle that needs to be broken. Bill C-231, in its current form, is a step in the right direction. I have heard the recommendations for amendments to the bill. It makes perfect sense to me if we can help more young people, while still ensuring that judges focus on treatment. That is precisely the problem highlighted by the current bill. Judges do not see the word “treatment” explicitly stated in the law. We need to keep the word “treatment” because it needs to become automatic. If police officers decide to take a youth into custody and bring them to a treatment centre, that decision must be made with the youth’s consent, but above all within the framework of a judicial process. Unfortunately, good intentions, as I have experienced myself, are sometimes not enough. It takes a wall. For some adolescents, the justice system is a wall that will help them realize in that moment that they can make a different choice for their lives. (1755) I look forward to hearing the proposals and seeing how we can adapt Bill C-231 in committee. I would like to thank all my colleagues in the House for the support they have shown so far for Bill C-231. I believe that, together with my wife, Caro, my family, and all my colleagues, we can truly make a difference. [Expand] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): The question is on the motion. If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair. [Expand] Luc Berthold: Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division. [Expand] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, April 15, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions. [English ]

Pursuant to Standing Order 30(7), the House will now proceed to the consideration of Motion No. 15 under Private Members' Business. [Translation ]

Conservation Donations

The House resumed from December 3, 2025, consideration of the motion. [Expand] Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support Motion No. 15, moved by my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi and which I am pleased to co-sponsor, calling on the government to examine ways of improving tax incentives for ecological gifts and to establish tax parity between in-kind donations of land and monetary donations to conservation organizations. There is a very important principle behind this motion, that of empowering people to protect nature. That is important because Canada has a lot of natural capital. Our country is home to 20% of the world's freshwater reserves, 37% of the world's lakes, 25% of the world's wetlands and 24% of the world's boreal forests. We also have one of the longest coastlines and one of the largest maritime territories in the world. Our natural habitats are home to approximately 80,000 species. Canada has committed to protecting 30% of our land and oceans by 2030. This commitment is part of the global biodiversity framework adopted in Montreal in 2022 and represents one of the most ambitious environmental objectives of our time. To meet it, we must adopt a whole-of-society approach based on innovation and close co-operation. That includes the participation of indigenous peoples, several federal departments and agencies, all levels of government, industry, environmental organizations, philanthropic organizations and private landowners. This objective does not depend solely on the government. The reality across Canada is clear: A large proportion of the natural habitats with the greatest biodiversity is found on private land. Whether it be forests, wetlands, rivers or natural grasslands, a significant proportion of these ecosystems belongs to citizens, families, farmers and businesses. In other words, the success our our national commitment also depends on the willing participation of these landowners. That is precisely where ecological gifts come into play. Through the ecological gifts program, landowners can donate land or a conservation easement to a recognized organization to ensure that the natural environment is permanently protected. In return, they receive a tax benefit that recognizes the value of this gesture. This program is one of the most effective conservation tools available to Canada. Since 2007, it has helped protect over 800,000 hectares of natural areas across the country, an area comparable to the size of Prince Edward Island. These lands include old-growth forests, essential habitats for species at risk, wetlands that filter water and natural landscapes that shape the identity of many communities across the country. With the help of this program, every hectare protected helps to preserve our natural heritage and safeguard our collective future, because natural ecosystems play a role in filtering our water and purifying our air. They store carbon and help mitigate climate change. Our natural ecosystems also support pollination, which is essential to food production, and they reduce the risk of floods and droughts. The positive impacts of natural ecosystems are estimated to be worth more than $30 billion annually in Canada, representing an immense asset to our society. Protecting natural environments is therefore not just an environmental issue. It is also a smart economic decision. Nature-based solutions, such as protecting forests, wetlands and watersheds, are among the most effective and cost-effective ways to strengthen our communities' resilience to climate change. Investments in ecological restoration also generate significant economic benefits. In other words, protecting nature is not a barrier to development, but rather an investment in a sustainable future. Ecological gifts are a perfect example of this logic. When a landowner decides to make an ecological gift, they voluntarily give up a significant portion of the market value of their property so that the land can be protected in perpetuity. (1800) This turns a private asset into a public asset. It does so without the government having to purchase the land or immediately assume the costs of acquiring it. It is a great example of collaboration among citizens, conservation organizations and governments. However, for this model to work, it must be adequately supported. Today, while the ecological gifts program remains an exemplary tool, many aspects of the tax framework have not been modernized in over two decades. Motion No. 15 therefore poses a simple but essential question: How can we adapt our tax incentives to encourage more Canadians to participate in this collective effort? The first part of this question has to do with land donations themselves. For example, enhancing tax credits for ecological gifts could encourage more landowners to take that next step and speed up the creation of protected areas on private lands. The motion also highlights another issue, which is the funding of conservation organizations. These organizations play a key role in protecting natural environments. They conduct biological inventories, manage sites, conduct ecological restoration and ensure long-term monitoring of protected lands. In other words, they turn a gift of land into a true, sustainable conservation project. Their work relies heavily on private and philanthropic contributions. Monetary donations are used to fund essential activities like scientific studies, legal fees, conservation easement acquisitions, habitat restoration, ecological monitoring and community engagement. Without these resources, effectively protecting and managing donated land becomes much more difficult. Today, however, tax incentives for monetary donations to support conservation are still relatively limited. Motion No. 15 proposes to examine the possibility of instituting tax parity between land donations and monetary donations made to conservation organizations. This idea is based on a recognition that these two types of contribution are complementary. Land donations help protect natural environments, while monetary donations help ensure that these environments are protected and managed over the long term. Each depends on the other to fully function. Creating tax parity between these two forms of philanthropy would strengthen Canada's entire voluntary conservation system, with potentially significant benefits. National analyses show that every dollar invested in conservation can generate considerably more in economic, social and environmental benefits. For some conservation programs, one government dollar is estimated to attract at least one dollar of private funds, thereby creating a significant leverage effect. Supporting environmental philanthropy is therefore one example of a highly profitable public investment that we can make. It is also important to note that ecological gifts are not limited to large estates. Many donations come from rural families, farmers, or citizens who wish to protect a wooded area, a marsh, or a lake that is part of their family history. These landowners are not seeking a financial benefit. They wish to leave a legacy. The tax credit is therefore not a gift. It simply recognizes the actual loss of asset value incurred by the donor when they choose to protect land rather than sell or develop it. The true beneficiaries of these donations are all of the members of our communities. As I mentioned, protected lands have significant environmental benefits, particularly in terms of drinking water filtration. They support biodiversity, mitigate the effects of climate change and provide natural spaces that contribute to the quality of life in communities. These contributions represent collective benefits that extend far beyond the land itself. Motion No. 15 aims to better recognize this contribution. By supporting this motion, we are not merely creating a tax mechanism. We are sending a clear message: that voluntary conservation is an integral part of the solution for protecting biodiversity in Canada. We also recognize the vital role played by citizens, conservation organizations, local communities and indigenous peoples in protecting the land. The green transition cannot be carried out by governments alone. It must be the result of a collective effort. That is precisely what my colleague's motion proposes. It calls on us to strengthen a model that is already working, a model based on generosity, collaboration and shared responsibility for our natural heritage. I want to emphasize that protecting nature is not a luxury. It is a necessity for the health of our ecosystems, the resilience of our communities and the well-being of future generations. Every protected forest, every protected river and every restored wetland is an investment in our future. Every act of voluntary conservation deserves to be recognized and encouraged. With Motion No. 15, we have an opportunity to strengthen these actions. It proposes a pragmatic, balanced and effective approach to accelerate the protection of natural environments in Canada. (1805) For all these reasons, I invite my colleagues to support this motion. Protecting nature means protecting our future. The decisions we make today will shape the land we leave for future generations. In closing, I want to congratulate my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi for his leadership on this file. [English ]

[Expand] Blaine Calkins (Ponoka—Didsbury, CPC): Mr. Speaker, what is Motion No. 15? It is a non-binding motion brought forward by one of our new colleagues, a Liberal here in the House of Commons. Its purpose is to create a discussion and take a vote on a very specific proposal to make the donation of cash to conservation or preservation organizations be treated in the tax code the same as the donation of land. In the preamble of the motion, we read, “the Government of Canada has committed to conserving 30% of territory by 2030 in order to address biodiversity loss and strengthen the resilience of our ecosystems”. Well, that sounds good, but here is the stumbling point. The House has never voted to approve the 30 by 30 and 50 by 50 agenda that Canada signed on to at COP15 on the Convention on Biological Diversity. In the previous Parliament, the minister of environment, who has since resigned due to the MOU signed between Canada and Alberta, tried to table a bill to give the government a mechanism to implement the 30 by 30 and 50 by 50 agenda. The bill never passed; there was no vote. The government simply signed on and has begun implementation without consulting all Canadians or the House. The Liberals are doing so through the Fisheries Act powers, through the creation of national parks and through agreements with first nations on indigenous protected and conserved areas. The government has already signed on to agreements or has begun negotiations for over 60 of these indigenous protected and conserved areas, and we do not know what is in them. I asked, through an access to information request, and I only received four agreements that have been signed by the government. I asked for these two years ago. The Liberals had 30 days to get back to me, and they have not done so on over 50 of these agreements. We are seeing a trend in Canada where the government and first nations negotiate among themselves and then announcements are dropped on the public, causing confusion and uncertainty. Now even the question of private property ownership in British Columbia is in doubt. What is the agenda? For those who are listening at home, many have never heard of this. The Liberals' goal is to preserve 30% of the terrestrial and marine environments of Canada by the year 2030 and 50% by the 2050. The rationale is to ensure habitat protection to maintain biological diversity. It is not just a random 30% of Canada or 50% of Canada, but 30% of each ecological zone in Canada, which means 30% of our mountainous areas, 30% of the Canadian Shield, 30% of prairie grasslands, 30% of the parkland forest, 30% of the boreal forest and so on. Much of these areas have significant portions of the land as privately owned property. The government needs a mechanism to turn this privately owned land into recognizable conservation land in protected areas. As well, because the Convention on Biological Biodiversity sets the standards of what it means to meet a conservation or preservation threshold, it will require private landowners to either sell their land or put easements or conservation overlays on that land, which would severely restrict what types of activities are allowed to happen on that private land. The mechanism to donate this land already exists. The motion seeks to make the donation of money to this cause be treated equally under Canadian tax law, which is meant to be a driver of this agenda. Furthermore, the government is using this non-binding motion to implement its global central-banker-backed philosophy. The definition, for those who do not know how this works, is that for the 30-30 initiative, a protected area is a geographically defined space managed legally or effectively to achieve long-term biodiversity conservation. This includes formal national and provincial parks, marine protected areas, indigenous protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, such as wildlife corridors or sustainable management zones. I want to focus on this for a minute, because it is these other effective area-based conservation measures that this motion is specifically speaking to. This is largely how private land can become protected and count towards the 30% by 2030 and 50% by 2050. There are excellent organizations in Canada doing good work. Ducks Unlimited uses a model of conservation easements where willing landowners put restrictive covenants on their properties in exchange for cash. These easements survive change in title so that when someone buys land with an easement on it, they honour the easement. Once an easement is in place however, it does severely restrict what the landowner is allowed to do. For example, if one were going to do any development on that land, such as building a pipeline on it, the pipeline company would need the blessing of both the landowner and the holder of the conservation easement. We can see where this gets really complicated really fast. Furthermore, each easement is an individual agreement between the landowner and the holder of the easement. They are not all the same, so if one is managing a large construction project that is spanning several different easements, each one of them is written differently. The Nature Conservancy of Canada focuses more on purchasing land and will allow the continuation of farming and certain agricultural practices, but as the landholder and title holder, they would ultimately be able to decide if any other types of economic activity would be allowed to proceed on this conservation-designated land. Both organizations, I know, are well intended. As a hunter, I appreciate that I can usually access these conservation areas, although it usually comes with more restrictions than accessing private land or Crown land. Who is driving and helping with this agenda? The United Nations Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, adopted in December 2022, establishes four goals and 23 targets for 2030 to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. (1810) The core target includes 30 by 30, commitments to restore 30% of degraded ecosystems and halt human-induced species extinction. Financial reforms include reducing harmful subsidies by $500 billion annually and mobilizing $200 billion a year in biodiversity funding. Emphasis is placed on indigenous rights, stewardship and integration of traditional knowledge. This means that the indigenous-protected conservation areas will rely on traditional knowledge rather than science-based management of species. This is in contravention, generally speaking, of the North American model of wildlife management, which creates confusion for wildlife managers. Targets to reduce pesticide risks and pollution, as well as to cut food waste by 50% is another goal, as is the framework for fair benefits sharing from digital sequence information, such as the genetic resources that we are looking to protect and preserve. What role does the World Economic Forum, the WEF, have in this? It acts as a facilitator and a coalition builder, supporting the 30 by 30 and 50 by 50 agenda; aligns private sector capital; and develops financial models and brings political and business leaders together to advance the implementation of this agenda. The global financial sector and banking sector have a role in this as well. Banks are a key capital allocator supporting the 30 by 30 goal. An estimated $1.2 trillion is annually needed from private sector investment in order to achieve their outcomes, addressing an estimated $700-billion annual biodiversity funding gap. Key roles for banks involve mobilizing private capital through blended finance and green bonds, shifting portfolios away from nature-negative sectors such as defunding oil and gas and other types of economic development, and developing new financial instruments, adopting the nature-related risk disclosure framework and promoting sustainable practices, which Canada already does in agriculture, forestry and fisheries. What would Conservatives do differently? I think Canadians would be surprised to know that, currently, 89% of Canada is Crown land and 100% of our water is managed under the direction of the government. Nobody owns a single square inch of the surface of water in Canada. If the management of our Crown land has sustainable development frameworks underpinning it, and it does, and if the Government of Canada, which is responsible for all our oceans, were properly managing them, then one could easily say that Canada has already met this conservation agenda. Nothing happens on Crown land without permission from a provincial, territorial or federal government. No activity is allowed to happen on the ocean without permission granted by the Government of Canada. No activity is allowed to happen on any lake or river without the consent of a province or territory. These are all governments that all Canadians are allowed to vote for. For the remaining 11% of land, which is privately owned, 7% of it is zoned agricultural, meaning that only agricultural activity is permitted on these lands. In fact when it comes to the environment, farmers and ranchers are some of the best stewards of the land, because it is in their own best interests to ensure the integrity of the land and the ecosystem. The land of a farmer is valuable only if it can continue to grow a crop and if it continues to yield forage or pasture for livestock, which means that this land is also very valuable for wildlife. Anybody with any hunting experience would know that pasture land is some of the most prized hunting land a hunter can access. Marginal land with trees and natural systems acting as connected corridors weaving through highly productive farmland and forage land creates an abundance of ungulates, migratory birds, upland game birds and even some apex predators. That leaves 4% of the land mass of Canada available for building roads, cities, towns and the human ecosystem. Why are land and building houses so expensive in Canada? It is because we restrict access to our own land. Fourteen million people are allowed to access only about 4% of the land for purchase, building houses and development. Now the government, through the motion, would be enabling further restrictions on the 7% of farmland that is currently zoned agricultural. This would create more barriers, preventing economic activity that is necessary to keep our country working for all Canadians. Drawing circles and lines around 30%, and eventually 50%, of Canada and locking it in place for all time simply makes no sense. I will give an example. In its desire to help the southern resident killer whales on the west coast of Canada, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has created massive exclusion zones for fishing and other activities. The whales are rarely in these areas, because they are migratory creatures. Permanent closures and permanent restrictions are of little to no use at all in the protection of these whales. While they serve the purpose of a box-checking exercise, it is very easy to question whether the desired result of balancing ecological integrity with economic activity is what the government is actually doing. The Liberals say they can protect the environment and protect the economy at the same time, but the results of their actions say something completely different. Conservatives would gladly partner with organizations to aid in conservation and the recovery of endangered and at-risk species, with the understanding that if a necessary economic activity needs to happen, then everybody involved is consulted and the decision is made transparently. (1815) It is because of these and a plethora of other examples that Conservatives cannot, in good faith, support the agenda that the government currently has because we know that this agenda will overly restrict human activity and economic activity, as well as create friction in the socio-economic fabric of our country. [Translation ]

[Expand] Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise with great pleasure and interest this evening to speak to the motion moved by my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi, who is also my riding neighbour. We met at a different point in our lives when he was mayor of Bromont. We have known each other for some years. This is a very good motion and we are going to talk about it. The Bloc Québécois supports Motion No. 15, which is a strategic recognition. I want to commend the conservation organizations for being vital partners in this type of motion. The member and I share a number of environmental organizations in our ridings, including the Fondation SÉTHY, or the Fondation pour la sauvegarde des écosystèmes du territoire de la Haute‑Yamaska, and REHY, or the Regroupement environnement Haute‑Yamaska, which is made up of organizations with some connection to Brome—Missisquoi. REHY and especially the Fondation SÉTHY are working very hard on the conservation issue. I applaud them for being truly vital partners in conserving our land. Let us come back to the motion. Of course, tax incentives are a great idea because the government cannot simply rely on the generosity of the private sector. The government also has to do its part. It cannot simply leave this to the private sector. We need to protect biodiversity, but that is not just an option. It is a collective responsibility. It is clear that there are various stakeholders who can play a part in protecting this biodiversity. It is rather intimidating to speak to this motion when my colleague from Repentigny does such a great job as our environment critic. We have discussed this issue, and he would be better suited to talking about it than I am. There really is a sense of urgency. What we want to do in the House is elevate the debate and talk about the major biodiversity crisis, which is on par with the climate crisis. We must not forget that. We talk a lot about climate change, but the biodiversity crisis is also important. Here are some key figures. There are one million species that are at risk and 75% of terrestrial habitats have been altered. These figures are based on international data. We want to take meaningful action and talk about food and drinking water supply. Biodiversity also has an impact on health. We do not talk about that enough. Without biodiversity, the conditions necessary for life simply cease to exist. Finally, we want to remind everyone that the government has made commitments. The government pledged to protect 25% of the country's lands by 2025 and 30% by 2030. It is worth noting that we are currently at approximately 13.8% for land protection and 15.5% for marine protection. There have been repeated delays and sometimes a lack of consistency. The government announces ambitious targets, but does not always give itself the resources needed to meet them. What we want is to send a clear message that the federal government must do its part. In Quebec, 17% of the territory is protected. Quebec is already taking action. We also want to emphasize that protecting the territory falls under Quebec’s jurisdiction. It is clear that Quebec did not wait for Ottawa to act and that it must be able to continue doing so based on its own priorities. That is important. I have mentioned that the federal government has a part to play and that Quebec is doing its bit. Now, I would like to highlight some organizations that are working really hard, and I want to acknowledge that they are key players in this fight to protect our land and sea. These organizations have practical, on-the-ground expertise. With the Fondation SÉTHY, I actually had the chance to go into a bog in Saint-Joachim-de-Shefford and talk about biodiversity. I even got to vacuum up spiders. It was a fascinating experience to witness the richness and diversity of our region's peatlands and to observe and catalogue the species of spiders. It provided a very interesting insight into the environment. I tip my hat to these organizations for their in-depth knowledge of the field. Their work is complex, involving legal, scientific and financial aspects. Having met with representatives of these organizations on numerous occasions, I can say that one of their problems is the lack of recurring funding to help them fulfill their mandate. Among the recommended priorities is the renewal of the natural heritage conservation program, or NHCP. There is also talk of conservation investment funds and improving ecological grants. These organizations are the ones who are actually protecting the land, day in, day out. (1820) Land donations provide better tax advantages than monetary donations. Motion No. 15 addresses this imbalance. The solution it proposes is tax parity, which would result in more stable funding and a larger number of projects. People want to donate to protect nature and that should be encouraged, regardless of the form the donation takes. I also want to point out that protecting natural environments helps to improve quality of life, provides access to nature and ensures that the land is protected. Access to nature is proven to have a direct impact on both physical and psychological health. There is a connection between protecting natural environments and the growth of our regions, particularly for the local communities that depend on these wonderful areas for their livelihood. Protecting biodiversity means protecting our living environments. We are really talking about chronic underfunding. The government has made announcements recently, but I still want to remind the House that only 3% of projects receive support. According to a letter I received from a coalition of organizations, that translates into 31 out of 980 projects. That means only 10% of the land is being protected and receiving funding. The problem is not a lack of projects. It is a lack of federal funding. As I said earlier, we are in the midst of consultations. The federal government has its part to play. Quebec is fulfilling its responsibilities and organizations on the ground need to be supported. The organizations are ready, the projects exist and communities are prepared to do the work, but Ottawa is not always doing what it needs to. The strategic impact we are hoping to achieve is to show that the current system is not operating at full capacity. This justifies the need to go further than Motion No. 15, even though it is a very good start. We want to put forward meaningful, credible solutions for long-term funding. The proposals include creating a $150-million investment fund for conservation in Canada. We are talking about endowment-type funding, long-term support for land management to make long-term planning and maintenance possible. Ad hoc funding and unproductive announcements are critical issues that need to be addressed because protecting land is not a single act. It is a commitment for generations to come. This has an impact in our ridings. It is highly relevant to strengthening political roots, given that there are 150 conservation organizations, over 13,000 volunteers and more than 250,000 hectares of protected land. There is a tangible presence in our ridings and a direct impact on local communities. Behind every conservation project, there are citizens, volunteers and organizations deeply rooted in our communities. I would like to commend Martine and her team at Fondation SÉTHY. The landscapes of southern Quebec are often overlooked, yet over 80% of the population lives there. These areas are rich in biodiversity, but they are also under pressure, with species in need of protection. This creates conflicts between economic development and conservation. An integrated approach is needed. The places where people live are exactly where we need to be working and developing the economy, since there is more pressure on biodiversity in those areas. We must restore access to nature. It is a social and health issue, as I mentioned earlier. Doctors are now prescribing nature baths and forest bathing. It promotes physical and mental well-being, yet access to nature, be it lakes or mountains, is becoming increasingly limited. We must protect nature, but also ensure people have access to it close to home. Finally, we need to develop a comprehensive approach and tailor programs to indigenous communities. I want to emphasize that. We also need to facilitate conservation on agricultural land. Farmers keep telling us that they want to be part of the solution when it comes to protecting the land. They do not always want to be blamed. We need to continue working with them and facilitating the conservation of these agricultural lands. The federal approach needs to be more consistent, since it is sometimes ineffective. We need to work on that. This motion will help, because the solutions must be tailored to local realities, particularly those of indigenous communities and the farming sector. We have lakes, mountains and land to protect. This is essential for future generations. We will work to get this motion adopted. I want to once again congratulate my neighbour and colleague from Brome—Missisquoi. (1825) [English ]

[Expand] Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank all those watching out there in Canada. I am glad to have them watching us tonight. Really, Motion M-15 is about the Liberal commitment to the 30 by 30 agenda, the ever-growing commitment, as it grows to 50 by 50, which is half of our land mass and waters in Canada. There is also the commitment to funding the groups that promote this agenda. This agenda threatens public access to large tracts of land and waterways that have previously been utilized for hunting, fishing and resource development. This motion would ensure more loss of public access. Despite the Liberals trying to give us the impression that this is about conservation, it is really about protection. For the audience out there, I asked a group just last week at UVIC what the difference is between protection and conservation. Conservation is the principle that we will conserve things so we can use them. An example would be some people I know very well, our salmon fishermen and fisherwomen, who go on weekends to clean up garbage along the river and the streams, all to promote those salmon spawning again. That is, again, conservation so it can be used. Protection is completely different. This group is proposing to support more protection, and it is really building fences around areas in the country and really preventing accessing from what used to be public land. I am going to quote the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, who spoke on this earlier. He said that this debate is not simply about conservation policy. It is about who makes decisions over Canada's land, resources and economic future, whether those decisions are made here in Canada by elected representatives accountable to Canadians or whether they are increasingly shaped by international frameworks and targets negotiated outside this country's democratic institutions. I will speak first-hand because I have a couple of personal examples. It all really started around PNCIMA, which is the Pacific north coast integrated management area, where I was first exposed to MPAs, as they are called. Where it really hit home for me was the caribou closures that happened in my riding. It started with a meeting with the mayor and council in Chetwynd. They said that they were worried that, if these caribou closures really took hold, we would lose mills and we would possibly lose coal mines in the area. They were very concerned about what this closure would do to access to resources. Well, the closures came to fruition, despite community outcry and many community meetings saying this would be devastating for coal development, snowmobiling, hiking in the backwoods, skiing, etc. The government, despite all our recommendations, proceeded to go forward with this closure policy. We have since lost two mills in Chetwynd. We have lost access to snowmobiling in the Rocky Mountains, where people from Chetwynd go to recreate and people in the Peace region go to recreate. We saw this land closure do exactly as we had predicted with the loss of public access to previously accessible lands and waters. Another example is the bluffs of Pender, which are off Victoria. We met people who fish in Victoria and they have little boat businesses. This contributes about $1.3 billion to the provincial GDP. In this one really key area just outside of Victoria where people fish, the closure was proposed for the protection of the southern resident killer whales. Well, the southern resident killer whales are only in that particular area for five to seven days per year, yet they are going to close down the entire area for the entire year. These closures have not gotten smaller, even though the southern resident killer whale population and the other killer whale populations have done very well and are very healthy. The MPAs, or the marine protected areas, keep expanding all because of this 30 by 30 and 50 by 50 agenda. I will speak to another example that just happened recently, and this is under the current Prime Minister 's watch. It is a closure that is happening and has been implemented in Northwest Territories. I will just read the article, and this is an American article. Again, another highlight for us in this particular issue is that it is not just Canadians talking about these protections. It has actually had a lot of foreign influence, which has really shut down access to those public lands. The headline reads, “Pew and Partners Celebrate Unprecedented Indigenous-Led...”. (1830) It is not really indigenous-led. It was an initiative led by these other groups, and they got eventual buy-in from indigenous groups. I will read from the article again. It states: Pew and Partners Celebrate Unprecedented Indigenous-Led Initiative to Protect Northwest Territories WASHINGTON—.... The agreement, initially funded through an investment of CAD$375 million (approximately USD$270 million) in public and private financing.... The initiative will protect [not conserve] a vast area of intact forests, rugged mountain chains, and wetlands, lakes, and rivers, resulting in a significant contribution to Canada’s pledge to protect 30% of its lands and waters by 2030. Again, protection is putting a big fence around a large area of potentially resource-rich territory in the Northwest Territories. The article continues: Private donors will match the government on a 1-to-4 basis, contributing CAD$75 million over a 10-year period. Guess where that money is coming from? The article says it is coming from the Pew foundation, so the international donors, of which there are not many, include the Pew Charitable Trust. Here we have this foreign influence that really threatens access to the public not only to fish and hunt but also to mine. We know we are already struggling to have mining in Northwest Territories. The last mine is about to close at the end of 2026, and here we have another impediment to future development. I will just read this in terms of scale. When we say the scale of 30% and 50% and those kinds of things, what does that actually mean? This is a quote from an article in The Canadian Press about the size of 25 by 25 and then what 30 by 30 will mean in a tangible way. It states: To hit “25 by 25,” Canada must further protect more than 1.2 million square kilometres of land, or approximately the size of Manitoba and Saskatchewan added together [a massive amount of territory]. To get to 30 per cent is to add, on top of that, land almost equivalent in size to Alberta. It is massive. It continues: The federal government would need to protect another 638,000 square kilometres of marine territory and coastlines by 2025, or an area almost three times the size of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. By 2030, another area the size of the gulf would need to be added. Therefore, here we are, influenced by foreign non-governmental environmental organizations about closing key areas that we could formerly access publicly to fish, hunt and develop our resources, all shut down by these groups. I met Crawford Patkotak. He is an Alaskan Inuit leader and he spoke to us about this very issue. Listen to his approach to these radical environmental groups: Environmental groups, animal rights groups, these are the same organizations that come into our communities and try to split us all apart, split all the corporations, the tribes, the governments because they have an agenda [it is called the “30 by 30” agenda] and if they had their agenda we wouldn’t be able to hunt today. If they had their agenda, we wouldn’t be able to develop the oil we have in the ground. That would cripple us economically. He said that they told these groups to get lost. I would say that is an example of an indigenous leader who knows exactly the benefit of having access to be able to fish, hunt and develop their resources. Therefore, Motion No. 15, while well-intentioned perhaps, would really set the stage to have a lot more closures and protections in Canada, and 30 by 30 is already causing Canadians to lose access to our beloved fishing, hunting, areas of recreation and other examples I have laid out tonight. That, I simply cannot support. (1835) [Translation ]

[Expand] Hon. Steven Guilbeault (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak this evening to my colleague's Motion No. 15. Before going any further, I want to address the many inaccuracies and falsehoods uttered by the member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies. In fact, I do not believe that a single thing he said in his speech would stand up to fact-checking, but I will come back to that. I want to start by talking about where we began. When the Liberal government was elected in 2015, Canada was not protecting even 1% of its coastal areas and oceans, which are necessary, especially for our essential fishing sector. Today, nearly 16% of our marine areas and 14% of our land areas are protected, all within the past 10 years. How did we get there? One way was to make historic investments of almost $16 billion in a host of conservation initiatives that my colleague across the way seems utterly unable to comprehend. I am going to give a few examples of the falsehoods he mentioned earlier. He said we were putting up a glass cage, a fence around these areas. Take for example the Saguenay–St. Lawrence Marine Park, an area co-managed by the federal government and the Government of Quebec. There is endless fishing in that park. There is commercial shipping and tourism in that area. There are plenty of commercial activities, but all of that is done first and foremost with conservation in mind. When my colleague across the way says that we are going to put a glass dome and a fence around all of that, he clearly does not know what he is talking about. We have invested $16 billion over the past 10 years. Of course, we heard the Prime Minister and some of my colleagues announce a historic investment of nearly $4 billion a few weeks ago, as part of the strategy called “A Force of Nature: Canada's Strategy to Protect Nature”. I would like to take a moment to talk a bit about what this means and what we have done so far. We have committed to creating new national parks. Last summer saw record visitor numbers. When my colleague says that this is preventing Canadians from accessing nature, that is completely false, once again, because last summer, record numbers of people visited our national parks. More and more Canadians want access to green spaces and to natural environments in Canada that are protected from unchecked industrial development. That is exactly what we are doing. We are creating conservation areas, and we plan to create 15 new national urban parks. We have already created Rouge National Urban Park near Toronto. People can take a train from downtown Toronto to Rouge National Urban Park, which is one of the most visited national parks in the country. Evidently, what we have done so far also stems from the targets we agreed on at COP15 in Montreal in 2022. Allow me to quickly remind my colleagues what COP is. It is the Conference of the Parties, and it grew out of the 1992 Rio summit, where countries made commitments jointly, willingly and in an informed manner to tackle desertification, conservation and biodiversity, and climate change. At the COP in Montreal, which took place in a difficult international political context, in a geopolitical situation that challenged us all, 194 countries jointly committed to protecting 30% of our lands and oceans by 2030. My colleague opposite says there is a 2050 target, and I would really like him to show me where that target is. I have been working on these issues for decades and I have never seen a 2050 target for Canada. I am sorry, but he is making up things that just do not exist. Experts have described this conference as an historic agreement, with some even going so far as to call it a “bet on nature.” For us, of course, conservation is extremely important, but it is also something we must do in partnership with local communities. This is work that Parks Canada has been doing in an exemplary manner for many decades. One need only look at what is happening in Banff National Park or Jasper National Park to see very concrete examples. For us, it is also a way of working toward reconciliation. (1840) My colleague, the member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, mentioned the Northwest Territories as an example. I worked on this project along with 23 indigenous nations of the Northwest Territories in unanimous agreement. It was the first time in history this had happened. The Government of the Northwest Territories, the federal government and partners in Canada and around the world worked together to create this new conservation area, which, to the best of our knowledge, is set to be the largest indigenous-led protected area in the world, covering roughly one million square kilometres. That is how we are going to get there. I had the privilege of leading the creation of the first national park where everything, from start to finish, was done with indigenous peoples. I am referring to Pituamkek park in Prince Edward Island. This was the first time in our nation's history that we created a new national park in partnership with indigenous communities. In fact, they were the ones who approached us. Members of the Mi'kmaq community told us that they wanted this highly iconic and symbolic portion of their territory to be protected. They wanted to turn it into a national park, first of all to ensure that it was properly protected and conserved, but secondly, so that Canadians could go there and discover a part of their heritage and history. This brings me to the ecological gifts program, which directly contributes to the Government of Canada's land protection objectives. It is important to understand where the 30% figure comes from. Did we pull that number out of thin air, as some seemed to suggest? Of course not. It is important to look at the science. Numerous scientific reports have been produced that show us how to protect biodiversity. In case the Conservatives have forgotten, human beings are animals who need clean air and clean water to survive. We cannot live without those things, and we need a healthy terrestrial ecosystem. However, to achieve this, we need to protect at least 30% of our land and oceans, which is why we have set this target. It is not a ceiling, but rather a floor. That is where we need to start. The ecological gifts program plays a very important role because it enables conservation efforts on private land. In fact, the Conservative Party member did not once mention that the ecological gifts program relies on private landowners who commit to these projects entirely on a voluntary basis. These projects are essential pillars for achieving our goals. They help protect natural habitats on private land: forests, wetlands, and farmland. Some say that the land needs to stay completely untouched, but the program includes farmland. We are talking about voluntary conservation, and it is essential across the country. I would like to share a few examples of the benefits of this program. Since 1995, more than 2,000 ecological gifts have been made. This amounts to over $1.3 billion in donations and more than 252,000 hectares of permanently protected land, nearly half of Prince Edward Island. There are challenges associated with this program, and I believe the government can take steps to improve it, particularly with regard to ensuring tax parity between different types of donations, whether in-kind or monetary. In closing, protecting our precious natural environment is a necessity for our health, in terms of the water and air we need to live, but it is also our greatest ally in the fight against climate change and a celebration of Canadian identity. (1845) [Expand] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): The hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi has five minutes for his right of reply. [Expand] Louis Villeneuve (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today, the debate on Motion No. 15 is coming to an end. Basically, this motion brings us back to a very simple yet fundamental question: What are we actually doing to protect our lands in Canada in 2026? That may seem like a broad question, but on the ground, it takes a very practical form. As our Prime Minister so rightly said, “The beauty of Canada's nature — from lakes and forests to mountains and coastlines — is central to our history, our identity, and our way of life. As Canadians, we have the responsibility to protect the lands and waters we have inherited”. In my riding of Brome—Missisquoi, in the Eastern Townships, this is a reality that we experience every day. We live in a region where the richness of our land is part of our identity. However, this richness is fragile and much of it is found on private land. I regularly meet with concerned landowners, families and citizens who want to protect their land because they care about preserving what they have received and passing it on to future generations. These people are making important choices that have a direct impact on biodiversity, the quality of our living environments and the future of our regions, but they cannot do it alone. Right there beside them are conservation organizations, such as Appalachian Corridor and the Société de conservation du Mont Brome, which work tirelessly to protect these areas. They support owners, organize projects and manage protected areas over the long term. In short, they make conservation possible from a practical perspective. What these people on the ground are telling us is that the Canadian model of voluntary conservation is working but that it could be improved. Today, our system recognizes ecological gifts of land. That is a good thing. However, the reality of conservation is not just about acquiring land. It is also about everything that comes before and after: management, maintenance and protection over the long term. That depends largely on the organizations' ability to act. Motion No. 15 raises the issue of fairness and consistency. It invites us to ensure that our tax tools accurately reflect this reality as a whole and that the various ways of contributing to conservation are recognized in a fair and balanced way because, ultimately, the goal is to sustainably protect our natural environments. This discussion is also part of a broader context. The Government of Canada recently announced a new national nature strategy, which clearly recognizes that we need to mobilize more private capital to meet our conservation goals. That is a very important point. Governments have a role to play, but we know that we will not meet our goals without citizen engagement. We will not succeed without the help of the private sector. Most importantly, we will not succeed without creating the right tools. A large portion of the land to be protected is privately owned. That means one thing: We have to work with local residents. We have to give them tools. We have to recognize their contribution. We have to ensure that the framework they operate in is consistent, effective and adapted to today's reality. Motion No. 15 reinforces exactly that. By improving tax incentives, we are creating the conditions needed to mobilize more private capital for conservation. We are transforming willingness into true capacity for action. That is exactly the spirit behind Motion No. 15. This approach is not coercive. It is not a one-size-fits-all approach. It is based on collaboration, voluntary commitment and shared responsibility. Obviously, as in any serious debate, concerns have been raised and they are important. We must always ensure that the measures that we put in place are properly regulated and responsible and that they achieve the desired results. Motion No. 15 proposes that we take a step back and begin considering this in a structured way drawing on expertise from the field, from organizations and from citizens. This is an invitation to improve what already exists. Protecting our land is not an abstract issue. It is real. It is local. It often starts with individual decisions, decisions made by people who choose to protect a woodland or natural environment, to contribute to something bigger than themselves. Our role as parliamentarians is to ensure that these people are recognized, supported and encouraged. Motion No. 15 sends a clear message that protecting our natural heritage is a shared responsibility; that, at a time when Canada is setting ambitious targets, we also need to give ourselves the means to achieve them, particularly by mobilizing private capital; and that it is in our collective interest to give ourselves the means to act together in an intelligent, consistent and sustainable manner. (1850) In closing, I want to thank Stéphanie and Anne from my office, who supported me tirelessly and whose work was essential in putting forward this motion in the House. [Expand] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): The question is on the motion. If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried on division or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair. [Expand] Louis Villeneuve: Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division. [Expand] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, April 15, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

Adjournment Proceedings

[Adjournment Proceedings]

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved. [English ]

Persons with Disabilities

[Expand] Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am again here late at night to offer the government common-sense solutions. We hear every day that our health care system is stretched thin. Across the 34 communities in my riding of Courtenay—Alberni, too many people are already struggling to find a family doctor. We should be reducing pressure on the system, not adding to it, yet the federal disability tax credit process continues to do exactly that. Family doctors are spending hours on Government of Canada paperwork when they could instead be seeing their patients. The College of Family Physicians of Canada has been clear. In 2022, roughly 250,000 disability tax credit forms consumed about 250,000 hours of physician time, which is the equivalent of one million lost patient visits. That is one million appointments that could have gone to giving Canadians the care they need. There is also another side to this problem. Across the country, many people who already qualify for disability supports in their province or territory cannot access the disability tax credit, not because they are ineligible but because they cannot find a doctor to complete the form. No doctor means no form, and no form means no access. As a result, people are being shut out of both the disability tax credit and the disability benefit that depends on getting the disability tax credit. The benefit they are trying to get is modest, about $200 a month, but it can make a huge difference in the life of someone who is living on disability. It can be the difference between getting by and falling even further behind. Instead of removing barriers, the government is maintaining them. We are also learning from public servants at the Canada Revenue Agency who deal with the burdensome and duplicative process I identified that they are repeating the work that provinces and territories have already done. While a growing backlog of applications leaves Canadians waiting, this is not just inefficient but deeply frustrating for the staff, doctors and health care workers who are trying to help the people navigate the system to get this done. I have been raising this issue for years. Tonight I am responding to a question I asked again in December, and this question still has not improved the situation. Budget 2025 sets aside $10 million so applicants can pay a $150 fee to navigate the same broken process. Instead of fixing the system, the Liberal government is asking people to pay to get through it. It is just not okay. This is not a solution. Canadians deserve to know why these barriers remain. When eligible people cannot access supports, it raises serious ethical questions about whether the complexity is being used to limit access and make life harder rather than to improve outcomes. That is why I introduced Bill C-211, which would make it easier for people with disabilities to access the benefits they are entitled to while reducing the paperwork burden on health care workers. Right now, Canadians are forced to prove the same disability over and over again across different levels of government. My bill would streamline the process so that when a disability is recognized by a province or territory, it would automatically be recognized federally. This is a practical and common-sense fix. It would reduce barriers, improve access to benefits and free up doctors to focus on patient care. It would also ensure that people are not excluded simply because they cannot access a physician to complete their paperwork. Canadians deserve a system that works. New Democrats will continue to put forward practical solutions that relieve pressure on our health care system, respect health care workers and ensure that supports reach the very people who need them the most. It is time to fix the disability tax credit process once and for all. (1855) [Expand] Maggie Chi (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member for Courtenay—Alberni correctly notes that provinces already determine eligibility for their respective programs, including those based on disability. He is asking why the minister will not accept provincial approval to reduce barriers to obtaining the disability tax credit. It is not about red tape. The Canada disability benefit provides up to $2,400 per year to low-income persons with disabilities between the ages of 18 and 64 who are eligible for the disability tax credit, among other criteria. The amount is indexed to inflation and will be adjusted each July to reflect cost of living increases. This benefit was identified as a priority for the disability community because, although provinces and territories play a critical role in providing supports and services to Canadians with disabilities, those programs vary widely in objective, design, scope and amount. Our benefit was always intended to supplement, not replace, existing provincial and territorial income support measures. That is because our priority is to ensure equal access to support for persons with disabilities regardless of where they live in this country. We deliberately chose to base the eligibility criteria on the disability tax credit rather than provincial and territorial benefits to avoid creating disparities where a person qualified for the benefit in one province or territory and not in another. We wanted all Canadians to have equal access to federal support in addition to support they receive from provinces and territories. Basing disability eligibility on the disability tax credit ensures the Canada disability benefit is delivered in a consistent and equal way across Canada. We recognize that navigating these benefits and their requirements can be challenging, so we have made improvements. In budget 2025, we announced our intention to offset the cost of applying for the disability tax credit. New payments of $150 will be made to current, past and future Canada disability benefit recipients to help offset costs associated with applying for the disability tax credit. The payments are expected to be paid before the end of 2026-27. Additionally, the 2024 federal budget committed funding to support not-for-profit community-based organizations. This will help connect persons with disabilities in accessible and culturally appropriate ways to federal, provincial, territorial and/or local benefits that could assist them. This will also include the Canada disability benefit and the disability tax credit. Currently, 14 community-based organizations are receiving funding to help address barriers and increase take-up of benefits. These are a few ways we are supporting Canadians with disabilities by supporting their financial security. [Expand] Gord Johns: Mr. Speaker, even though this is federal, clearly the Liberal government does not see this as its issue. During COVID, governments moved quickly. We cut red tape, trusted existing systems and delivered support when Canadians needed it most. We need that same urgency now. Today, doctors are losing valuable time to paperwork instead of seeing patients. People who qualify for the disability tax credit and the Canada disability benefit cannot access the supports they need because they cannot find a doctor to complete the form. Meanwhile, public servants are stuck managing a duplicative process and growing backlogs. When resources are scarce, every hour matters and every barrier matters. Provinces already assess eligibility. The government needs to recognize that and act: Stop the duplication, free up doctors, support people and let public servants do their job. Why will the Liberal government not act now and take this issue seriously? (1900) [Expand] Maggie Chi: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his advocacy on behalf of Canadians with disabilities. I respect his work on this as he works tirelessly. I look forward to working with him on this. I appreciate the opportunity to remind colleagues that we are working to support persons with disabilities struggling with a higher cost of living. The Canada disability benefit is one part of a system of supports guided by the principle that inclusion is the foundation of a strong and resilient society. This is important work. As my colleague has noted, the government will continue engaging with provinces and territories to ensure Canada disability benefit recipients are better off because of the benefit. Our program highlights the federal government's commitment to building a more affordable and inclusive Canada. Health

[Expand] Matt Strauss (Kitchener South—Hespeler, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have come over to the government's side temporarily to offer my question today, because I think it is a common-sense, bipartisan question. I think that anybody on the Liberal side or the Conservative side of the House should be able to ask this sort of question and get a reasonable response. I certainly did not want to be here tonight. I asked what I thought was a very reasonable question to my friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health. She did not really answer it, and that is why I am here tonight. I am going to try asking it again, and I am going to beg her to answer it this time. For folks following at home, I will explain that the Liberal government in the last Parliament spent $250 million on a program called PrescribeIT, with the laudable goal of making it easier for physicians, such as me, to send prescriptions to the pharmacy. I am from the Waterloo region and went to the University of Waterloo. A lot of my friends are tech entrepreneurs and founders. Many of them are senior software developers at this stage of our life. I have asked them how much money this sort of thing should cost. They have said maybe $1 million, and $5 million maximum. There is no way it should have cost $250 million. The Liberals were spraying money from a firehose. It is incredible to spend a quarter of a billion dollars on something that should have cost 250 times less, but what is worse is that the program did not work. The Liberals know that it did not work, which is why they have cancelled it. After spending a quarter of a billion dollars of taxpayer money on something that did not work, they are cancelling it. The taxpayer is getting nothing. I know that my friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, was not here in the last Parliament. She did not sign the contract. The Prime Minister also was not here. There is no blame in it for either of them, but as a country, as a Parliament, we need to get to the bottom of this. It is Parliament's sacred duty to protect the taxpayer's dollar, and 250 million is a lot of dollars, so we would like to see the contract. We put forward a motion at the health committee to see the contract. The Government of Canada entered into that contract on behalf of the taxpayers and blew 250 million of their dollars. I think our bosses, the taxpayers, should get to see what the heck happened. My colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, spent two hours of our time filibustering the motion so as to not produce the document. The Prime Minister gave a speech today to reporters in which he said he does not like filibustering, and he criticized some Conservative members for speaking about “cats and dogs”. Does the Prime Minister know that the parliamentary secretary has been filibustering the document production order? Is he happy with that? Why is she doing it? Why will she not stop? Why will she not let the taxpayers see the contract so we can all stop this sort of waste and mismanagement from going forward in the future under the new government, as it likes to call itself? I am sitting close to the parliamentary secretary and can see that she has prepared remarks. I am begging her to put them away and just answer this very simple question for taxpayers: Why will she not just let us, as Canadians, taxpayers and residents in an open society, see the contract, please? [Expand] Maggie Chi (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague from Kitchener South—Hespeler for his question. Although he has temporarily crossed the floor, I hope it is more permanent than this. It is nice to have a friend sitting right beside us during adjournment debate. As members know, sometimes it can be a bit lonely during adjournment debate, so I appreciate the companionship. I think my colleague mentioned that, as a physician, he has seen first-hand how digitization has shaped and transformed Canadian health care over the past decades in Kitchener, and rightfully so. It is a capital, with a lot of digital transformations and innovations coming out of the city and the university. I think he is also very proud of that. The world is rapidly changing, and Canadians rightfully expect that our health care system will change with it. That is why successive governments, both Liberal and Conservative, have invested in Canada Health Infoway since 2001, with the goal of accessible information for patients and their doctors. That is also why we introduced Bill S-5, the connected care for Canadians act, in the Senate, so that Canadians can securely access their health care data anywhere and any time in Canada. Just as importantly, we need to reduce the administrative burden on doctors so they can spend less time on filling out paperwork and more time doing what they love, which is caring for their patients. This has been at the heart of the work by our government and previous governments to develop a pan-Canadian interoperability road map, one that drives the adoption and use of electronic medical records by doctors across the country and helps them share data safely and securely. Part of this work included PrescribeIT. As the member knows from his time as a doctor, many physicians are still using fax machines. It is almost impossible to find fax machines anywhere else in a world with emails and secure online messages. However, if one goes to some doctors' offices, one feels like they have been transported to a different time. That was why the previous government worked with the provinces and territories to develop PrescribeIT. The goal was to move our health system toward safe, secure and efficient e-prescribing that could deliver real benefits to Canadians and to the health care providers who serve them every single day. I think the member would agree that this was an understandably worthwhile goal, as he mentioned in his remarks. No matter the intention, the facts have been very clear. The previous government's intention for PrescribeIT was for it to become self-sustaining. However, by any measure, it was clear that the program was not achieving that goal. Rather than simply continuing to invest in a program that was not delivering the intended results, we undertook a comprehensive review and consultation process that included engaging with provinces and territories and with the people who actually use the program. Based on these findings, we decided to end PrescribeIT. However, the work to promote a more connected health care system for Canadians needs to continue and will continue. We continue to support organizations like Canada Health Infoway, as well as provinces and territories, to develop innovative new digital solutions. Not only that, we are backstopping this work with Bill S-5, the connected care for Canadians act, which would help Canadians move their health data with them anywhere they go. Canadians deserve a modern health system. I look forward to working with my friend and colleague to deliver that. (1905) [Expand] Matt Strauss: Mr. Speaker, let us start that work right now. Please answer the question: Why will you not let us see the contract? [Expand] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): Please speak through the Chair. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health. [Expand] Maggie Chi: Mr. Speaker, the facts are clear. PrescribeIT was launched by the previous government with the goal of building a national e-prescribing system. While this is an important goal, the fact is that PrescribeIT did not have the pickup among doctors and pharmacies that it needed to make the system self-sustaining. At a time when we need to spend less and invest more, our government decided to end the funding for the program. There is important work to be done in creating a connected digital health care system that works for all Canadians. Through legislation like the connected care for Canadians act, we are delivering on the digital future. Public Services and Procurement

[Expand] William Stevenson (Yellowhead, CPC): Mr. Speaker, at a time of global conflict and energy insecurity, Canada should be part of the solution by providing ourselves and our allies a secure and reliable source of energy. Instead, the Prime Minister continues to block Canadian energy development while our allies search elsewhere for supply, leaving us vulnerable to Trump's unjustified tariffs. Today, none of Canada's oil reaches Europe because Liberal laws have made it nearly impossible to build pipelines or the export facilities that are needed to get it there. The consequences are serious. Amid the conflict in the Middle East, the Trump administration continues easing sanctions on Russian oil. Every barrel that Russia sells means more revenue to Putin's war machine. Instead of supporting Canadians, that money is funding a dictatorship that continues to terrorize Ukrainian civilians. Canada cannot control global conflicts, but we can control whether our resources reach the world market. It is time for the government to remove the barriers holding Canadian energy back. There has been photo op after photo op, with dozens of police officers as a backdrop, to announce empty promises. The Liberal Prime Minister and public safety minister pledged to improve safety with 1,000 new RCMP officers. The Auditor General delivered a damning report recently that said the RCMP is now short 3,400 officers. Recruitment is failing. With only 1,500 spots available, the training positions are still not being fulfilled. After a year-long wait to get processed, only 6% of applicants are making it through the process. The RCMP is failing to recruit, train and retain the officers we need to protect our communities, and the government continues to turn a blind eye to the problem. In rural communities, like the ones I represent in Yellowhead, police are stretched to a breaking point. They cannot keep up with the wave of crime while the Liberals delay real bail reform. Even with the announcements, there have been enough photo ops. It is time to stop the illusions, put real boots on the ground and actually protect Canadians. The Auditor General has made it clear that after nearly a decade, billions of dollars and countless promises, the Liberal government has no credible plan to fix the Phoenix pay system. Over 133,000 public employees remain trapped in a backlog of pay errors, with many afraid to retire because they do not trust that they are actually going to get their correct pay. The government is now preparing to move forward with a replacement system while the underlying problems remain unresolved. The Auditor General warned that without fixing the existing data and the backlog, the same errors will simply be transformed into the new system. What has all this cost? The Phoenix system cost $4 billion, and now the government is planning to spend another $3.5 billion on a replacement system that risks repeating the same mistakes. Public servants have been overpaid, underpaid or not paid at all. It is no wonder the bureaucrats in Ottawa and across the country do not trust the Liberal government, let alone Canadians who lost confidence years ago. I ask the government this. Why is it prioritizing a rushed transition to a new pay system instead of fixing the existing backlog, cleaning up the data and ensuring that the same costly mistakes are not being repeated? (1910) [Expand] Maggie Chi (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I share the hon. member's concern on this issue and welcome further discussion of the outgoing Phoenix pay system and its effects on Canada's public sector workers. Our hard-working public servants are dedicated to serving Canadians. Every day they strive to deliver a broad range of programs and services that make a positive difference in communities across the country. I want to be clear that it is totally unacceptable that for so long so many of our public servants have had to contend with inaccurate and untimely compensation. Our government recognizes the toll this has taken and Public Services and Procurement Canada has acted to address the issue in a number of ways. The department has hired and trained more compensation advisers and has expanded client support services and call centres to meet the challenge. Alongside work on reducing the existing backlog of cases, the department is focused on ensuring all current pay transactions are accurate the first time around. At the end of last year, an average of 98.4% of pay transactions were accurate. The department is also making use of improved technology and taking advantage of new ways of processing pay transactions, such as bulk processing and automation. The department is also exploring AI-enabled supports for more straightforward cases. The use of these technologies means faster results and a reduced need for manual processing, allowing compensation advisers to focus their efforts on the more complex cases. While much hard work is going into fixing the problem created by the existing pay system, we know the situation is not sustainable. We must transition from Phoenix once and for all, and that is what our government intends to do. Last May, the Government of Canada announced it is moving towards implementing a new, more reliable pay solution known as Dayforce. This will replace not only Phoenix but also more than 30 existing HR systems. This new system will be rolled out gradually over the coming years, and that pace is deliberate. We need to avoid the mistakes of the past and make sure we have a robust and reliable system that pays public servants accurately and on time. As we move forward with this transition, we are guided by the many lessons learned, including the most recent recommendation of the Auditor General, which we have accepted and are addressing. We will also point out that, in her most recent report, the AG found that we are managing the project to transform the pay system and that the project will provide value for money once implemented. While nothing can erase the financial disruptions of the past, we can certainly work to ensure they do not happen again. If we are to build trust with our public servants, we must act decisively to eliminate the backlog, improve our capacity to manage pay in the here and now, and phase in a replacement system that truly meets the needs of Canada's hard-working public servants. That is exactly what we are doing. (1915) [Expand] William Stevenson: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are losing confidence in the fairness of our immigration system. The Auditor General found over 153,000 suspected cases of international student visa fraud, yet only a fraction are being investigated. At the same time, the Ethics Commissioner found that a deputy minister who was in immigration at the time broke the Conflict of Interest Act by fast-tracking a friend into an $80,000-a-year role at immigration, despite their having no French, no government experience, no basic systems knowledge and no expertise in federal laws. With the system in its worst shape in years, fraud goes unchecked, the minister avoids accountability and insiders get special treatment. Decisions like this, alongside other online failures such as the pay system, undermine the work of dedicated public servants and demotivate those who actually follow the rules. Canadian taxpayers expect qualified people in charge. How can they trust the government when their connections matter more than their competency? [Expand] Maggie Chi: Mr. Speaker, we know that the problems with the Phoenix pay system have had lasting consequences for public servants and their families. Public Services and Procurement Canada has strengthened its ability to deal with compensation issues accurately and in a timely fashion. Much progress has been made, but some public servants continue to face pay issues. This is unacceptable. From hiring and training more pay advisers to using AI-enabled service supports for more straightforward cases, I can assure the member that the government is taking concrete actions to address and mitigate public service pay issues. We are also phasing in Dayforce, a more stable and reliable replacement system, that will better serve Canada's dedicated public servants and rebuild trust in the Government of Canada as an employer of choice. [Expand] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). (The House adjourned at 7:17 p.m.) Hansard - 102 (April 14, 2026) Explore By: Table of Contents
- Routine Proceedings
- Government Orders
- Statements By Members
- Oral Questions
- Government Orders
- Private Members' Business
- Adjournment Proceedings