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.
45th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • No. 122
CONTENTS
Tuesday, May 26, 2026
House of Commons Debates
Volume 152
No. 122
1st SESSION
45th PARLIAMENT
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Speaker: The Honourable Francis Scarpaleggia
Routine Proceedings
[Routine Proceedings]
[English]
Committees of the House
Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, two reports of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.
The first is the 10th report, entitled “Youth Employment in Canada”. The second is the 11th report, entitled “Main Estimates 2026-27”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to the 10th report, “Youth Employment in Canada”.
[Translation]
[English]
Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, entitled “Main Estimates 2026-27: Vote 1 under Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying, Vote 1 under Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Vote 1 under Office of the Senate Ethics Officer, Votes 1 and 5 under Offices of the Information and Privacy Commissioners of Canada”.
[Translation]
[English]
Petitions
Mr. Speaker, I am presenting two petitions.
I am honoured to table e-petition 7222, put forward by my constituents in Winnipeg Centre, condemning the Liberal government's unconstitutional and undemocratic Bill C-9, the so-called combatting hate act. The petitioners note correctly that through Bill C-9, the Liberals have contravened the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Bill of Rights and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
I stand by my constituents calling on the Liberal government to uphold democratic and civil rights rather than criminalizing protests, and calling on the House to respect the charter and repeal the unconstitutional Bill C-9.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to take the opportunity to table e-petition 6709, put forward by condominium owners across the country, calling on the government to recognize that aging condo buildings throughout Canada are experiencing deterioration, while the high cost of construction has made it difficult for many condo residents, families and individuals alike to afford these repairs. We are experiencing a housing crisis in Canada, and the government must provide financial support for housing that works for all types of communities.
I echo the petitioners' calls on the government to ensure that federal housing programs reflect the diversity of housing models in Canada, including condominiums.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, many serious allegations have been made regarding the behaviour and actions of Canadian companies abroad. I have heard accounts from abroad regarding cases of violence against local populations, water pollution and contaminated air. Simply put, the Trudeau government, which is still in office under another name, supposedly created the position of Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise to address this problem.
Unfortunately, this is a shell of an organization that receives complaints but cannot conduct its own investigations. It also lacks independence and the power to compel testimony and order the production of documents.
That is why I am tabling this petition, which also calls on the government to appoint a new ombudsperson since the position has been vacant for a year. That makes the situation all the more unacceptable. The petition also calls on the government to give the ombudsman real authority to act.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to present a petition on behalf of over 600 Canadians.
In the postwar years, over 300,000 unmarried young women had their babies forcibly removed after giving birth. In 2018, the Senate released the report “The Shame is Ours”, calling on the government to implement four recommendations to right these historic wrongs. These women and children, because of outdated adoption laws, have not been able to find each other and have not been able to get closure.
On behalf of the hundreds of these women in Canada still alive today, and their children, petitioners are calling upon the government to implement the recommendations of the Senate report and to make amends for this historic wrong.
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise on behalf of the people of Simcoe—Grey, and more specifically those in Clearview Township.
The Department of National Defence has purchased one farm of roughly 780 acres, to install an over-the-horizon radar system in a phase one. In order to really complete the system, it is going to need phase two. All the residents are extremely concerned. The department needs another up to 3,000 acres to complete it.
Clearview Township and municipalities around it are all opposed to the site's location. We think the department needs to find another spot for it. This is going to change the lives of residents. People are stressed. They do not know if their land is going to be expropriated, and, quite frankly, the public meetings have not been very fruitful.
Petitioners are asking to stop the building of the over-the-horizon radar site on the already purchased property, prevent future acquisition of prime farmland in building an over-the-horizon site and register the previously purchased property with the Ontario Farmland Trust to preserve its agricultural status.
Traditional Chinese Medicine and Acupuncture
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise on behalf of the people of Richmond Hill South.
Petitioners are concerned that, given that traditional Chinese medicine and acupuncture are regulated health professions providing essential care and pain management in chronic disease, their exclusion from the 2025 federal primary care compendium undermines national health strategies and workforce modernization. They are concerned that the current exclusion from federal planning creates a fragmented health care system that fails to utilize the full scope of available health care providers.
Therefore, the petitioners call on the Government of Canada to, number one, formally recognize traditional Chinese medicine and acupuncture as a unique health profession as defined within the national occupational classification; number two, restructure the natural health product cost recovery model to exempt traditional herbal products, ensuring that small practices and importers remain viable; number three, formally acknowledge the integral role of these professions to ensure fair treatment and integration within all federally supported health workforce and modernization strategies; and number four, restore NOC 32200 to the express entry health care occupations category to provide skilled TCM and acupuncture professionals with equitable access to Canada's immigration system.
Questions on the Order Paper
Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[For text of questions and responses, see Written Questions website]
Government Orders
[Business of Supply]
[Translation]
Business of Supply
Opposition Motion—Cancellation of Federal Taxes on Gas and Diesel and the Clean Fuel Standard
That, given that,
(i) gas prices are 13% higher in Canada than in the United States, equating to 22 cents more on average per litre,
(ii) gas now costs 50 cents more per litre today than when global oil prices were at the same level in 2014,
(iii) the Minister of Finance and National Revenue told Canadians on May 19, “We have already acted”
(iv) Canadian families are still paying more to live due to a decade of Liberal credit card budgets, waste and mismanagement
the House call on the government to offer Canadians immediate relief by ending all federal taxes on gas and diesel for the rest of the year, including the GST, and permanently scrap the Clean Fuel Standard.
He said: Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to note that I will be sharing my time with the member for Cloverdale—Langley City.
I am very pleased to rise in the House today to begin debate on a Conservative proposal to help Canadians. Our proposal is simple and clear: Immediately cancel all federal taxes on gas and diesel for the rest of 2026. We have been calling on the Liberals to do so since the beginning of the energy crisis in the Middle East. Given the global instability, a responsible government should have created a fiscal shield to protect its economy and its people. Unfortunately, the government chose to implement half measures.
Our proposal will provide relief in the context of the current energy crisis and cost of living crisis. Every Canadian family, every farmer, every trucker and every small business is directly impacted by energy costs and the cost of living.
Energy and affordability are the lifeblood of our country's economy. Let us consider the facts. The numbers do not lie. Gas prices are now 13% higher in Canada than in the United States, equating to 22¢ more on average per litre for Canadians. Why such a big difference compared to our neighbours to the south? What is even more alarming is that gas costs 50¢ more per litre today than when global oil prices were at the same level in 2014.
What is the government's response to this dire situation? The Minister of Finance and National Revenue had the nerve to tell Canadians on May 19, “We have already acted”. Telling a family who can no longer fill their tank to get to work that the government has already acted is an insult to their daily realities.
The truth is that the Liberals' current plan is nothing more than a half measure. They offered to cut only a third of the taxes for a third of the year. The Prime Minister says he understands that affordability is an issue, but his plan provides only limited, short-term relief that will not significantly cut costs for people. It would be a mistake to believe that these promises will be kept when all the government does is suspend a tiny portion of the excise tax just from April 20 until Labour Day. Canadians do not need a tax holiday that ends right when the school year begins and they will have new costs to cover. They need permanent relief.
That is why we Conservatives are renewing our call for a zero-tax policy on gas. Our strategy is clear and comprehensive. We are formally calling on the government to, first, cancel the excise tax on fuel for the rest of 2026; second, cancel the GST on gas and diesel for the rest of 2026; and third, scrap the clean fuel standard. We are particularly calling for the complete elimination of the clean fuel standard, which is essentially a permanent hidden tax on every litre used.
If our plan were fully implemented today, it would result in real, massive and immediate relief—a reduction of up to 25¢ per litre at the pump. For a family of four, that means savings of $20 or more every time they fill up. That is $1,200 in annual savings. That is real money. That is money going directly back into our constituents' pockets to pay for groceries and rent. Our plan saves 15¢ more per litre than the current Liberal plan. It is irrefutable proof that we are the only ones in the House proposing a solution that is up to the challenge posed by the crisis.
We cannot ignore what is happening on the international stage. Canada is becoming an unfortunate and isolated fiscal exception. Leading industrialized nations facing the same global pressures, such as Australia, Spain, Ireland, Italy, Germany and Austria, have already taken concrete steps to slash fuel taxes or offer direct relief at the pump. They have grasped the urgency of the situation. Meanwhile, here, despite the brief partial suspension of excise duties, Canadians continue to pay about 14.7% more than Americans. This injustice drags on because of federal taxes that remain stubbornly high, too high. Should we really be surprised by the Liberals' inaction in the face of this crisis?
After a decade of Liberal waste and mismanagement, Canadians are the ones paying the price. We are talking about massive cost overruns, handsomely paid consultants, not to mention a bloated federal bureaucracy. When will this government stop lining its own pockets and finally give that money back to our communities? The Minister of Finance seems to find this amusing, but I can assure him that, on the ground right now, Canadians and Quebeckers find nothing amusing about the current cost of living.
Let us not forget that every wasted dollar gets charged directly to Canada's credit card. It also gets charged to our children's and grandchildren's credit cards, and I want the Minister of Finance to be aware of that. I will have the privilege of becoming a grandfather on November 15, and I hope the Liberal government will demonstrate some fiscal discipline to help future generations and stop charging things to our children's and grandchildren's credit cards. Clearly, Canadians can no longer afford this Liberal government.
There is a direct connection between the price of diesel and the price of bread on store shelves. Statistics Canada recently reported that Canada has the worst food inflation in the G7. The Prime Minister took office a year ago on a solemn promise to make food more affordable. He failed. Now, a year later, families are paying the price.
Thanks to high energy prices, the government is raking in a massive surplus that could be as much as $9 billion. We believe the government has a basic obligation to give that excess revenue back to Canadians in this time of crisis. Our plan would put $5 billion back into the pockets of Canadian families while retaining $4 billion to ensure fiscal flexibility. The Liberals' decision to hoard the money speaks volumes. After 10 years of this government, who knows where that money will end up?
The Conservatives want a different country. We want a compassionate country, where parents never have to feel the pain of choosing between a full grocery basket or a full gas tank to get to work. The House must send a clear signal. It must demand that this government stop settling for half measures, temporary reprieves and optics. The time for a few tweaks here and there is over. We are calling for the outright cancellation of all federal taxes on gas and diesel for the remainder of the year, including the GST, along with the permanent elimination of the clean fuel standard.
Now is the time to move from words to action. Now is the time to offer immediate, substantial and measurable relief. Now is the time to put $1,200 back in the pockets of Canadian families, where it will do the most good. The people of this country are not asking for handouts or for more bureaucratic programs. They simply want the government to stop making their financial situation worse. They want less money for the Liberal bureaucracy and more money in their pockets, in their communities.
The Conservatives are standing up for affordability. We are standing up to bring relief to every Canadian family and every farmer, and today we are demanding a zero tax on gas.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the member opposite tries to imply, the Government of Canada understands the issue of affordability. That is why we see relief, in terms of the excise tax on gasoline.
I have a question for the member opposite. Why does the Conservative Party not support the groceries and essentials program that the Government of Canada has brought forward, which is providing significant relief to millions of Canadians?
The Conservative Party says it does not want to support that one. On the one hand, the Conservatives want us to do a little bit more. On the other hand, they vote against it when we do it in the form of the grocery program.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member who asked me that question is the same member who denied that there were any seniors not receiving what the Liberal government owes them. His party whip had to call him to order. The measures the Liberal government has put in place are partial measures. They apply for only a third of the year.
We are calling for a permanent measure for the entire year of 2026.
Mr. Speaker, as we have seen, the reduction in the federal excise tax has been offset by the increase in refining costs, which means that the price at the pump has not gone down.
I would like my colleague to tell me the following: How many billions of dollars will all the measures in the federal government's budget cost? How do the Conservatives plan to pay for that? Will they further increase the already sky-high deficit? If their plan is to make cuts, what would they cut? Which taxpayers would pay more in taxes?
Mr. Speaker, our plan is clear. We want to cut the Liberal red tape. We want to cut spending on consultants, which amounts to several billion dollars. We want to reduce the size of government so we can put money back into taxpayers' pockets. That is the Conservative plan.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member asked a question around groceries and why we do not support, basically, subsidies for Canadians. The Liberal government is already taking the money away from them.
I wonder if the hon. member could explain the whole value chain and how much the clean fuel standard costs our entire supply chain when it comes to food.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, it is not complicated. It is about the supply chain. Naturally, if we can lower processing and transportation costs, that will have a direct impact on grocery prices for Canadians. What Canadians need right now is some breathing room.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear from my colleague this morning, but I am a little surprised by his comments. The people in his riding are capable of keeping things in perspective.
First, I want to congratulate him on becoming a grandfather. He will be happy to know that we are going to build the strongest economy in the G7 for his grandson or granddaughter.
We know people are watching us at home, and I am sure my colleague will record today's proceedings. How will he explain to the people in his riding why he and his party voted against the affordability measures? Is he going to vote against the measure to ensure that, on June 5, people in his riding will receive the Canada groceries and essentials benefit? This is a measure that will help 12 million Canadians, including people in his riding. Can he tell them today on camera whether he will vote in favour of this measure, which will help people in his riding?
Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saluting the people of Richmond—Arthabaska, who placed their trust in a Conservative MP. That is the choice the people of Richmond—Arthabaska made in the last election. They made that choice because they are sick and tired of watching the Liberals spend so recklessly. After a decade of Liberal government management, the country's debt grew from $700 billion to $1.4 trillion, and the Liberals are still racking up charges on our children's and future grandchildren's credit card. The people of Richmond—Arthabaska know this has to stop.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, in the 1970s, during Britain's energy crisis, there was a saying that the government treats taxpayers like lemons; that every time it needs more money, it just squeezes harder. That is exactly how Canadians feel today every time they pull up to the gas pump. Whether someone is a mom driving their kids to hockey in Cloverdale, a tradesman in Langley filling up his truck before work or a senior cutting back on groceries because of gas prices, they all watch the numbers spin higher and higher while government quietly takes a bigger cut every second that dial moves.
If government revenue rises every time gas prices rise, what incentives do the Liberals actually have to bring that cost down? That is the uncomfortable truth at the centre of this debate. Every time families pull up to the pump and watch those numbers climb higher, Ottawa is standing right there with its hand out. There is the GST, the industrial carbon tax and the clean fuel standard, all stacked one on top of the other on every litre we buy. As Canadians watch those numbers click frighteningly higher, government revenues rise automatically.
After months of soaring prices and dogged pressure by the Conservatives, the Liberals finally arrived with a tiny, temporary tax break. They presented it as though they performed some great act of economic heroism. In reality, their plan delivers barely one-third of the relief for barely one-third of the year, compared to what Conservatives had proposed. The Liberals want Canadians to believe that the cupboard is bare, that this is the absolute limit of what government can do, when in fact they can remove all federal taxes on gas and diesel tomorrow morning and give some real and actual relief to Canadians.
However, that would require government to give up revenue and modern Liberals have become far too comfortable spending other people's money. Instead of real relief, Canadians are handed a carefully staged announcement designed to generate headlines, applause in Ottawa and just enough temporary relief to dull public anger while families continue struggling under the weight of higher energy costs. Meanwhile, the single mother driving to work, the tradesman filling up his truck, and the senior choosing between groceries and fuel are expected to celebrate crumbs while government continues feasting on the loaf.
That is why Conservatives brought forward this motion to remove all federal taxes on gas and diesel for the rest of the year and permanently scrap the costly clean fuel standard so Canadians can finally get some relief.
Milton Friedman once joked that if government were put in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand within five years. We laugh because we understand the deeper truth behind it, which is that governments interfere too heavily in markets, pile on taxes, add layers of bureaucracy and try to centrally plan the economy from Ottawa boardrooms. The people who can least afford it will eventually pay the price. That is exactly what has happened in Canada.
Let us think about it. Back in 2014, oil prices were sitting at roughly the same level they are today, around $100 a barrel, yet Canadians were paying about $1.37 a litre. Today, that same litre costs closer to $1.87. That is roughly 50¢ more per litre, even though the global oil price is essentially the same. What has changed? Liberal taxes have changed, of course.
Over the last decade, Canadians have been buried under a growing pile of federal costs layered onto energy. This includes the industrial carbon tax, the clean fuel standard and the GST charge on top of the entire inflated amount. We have tax upon tax upon tax, all justified by politicians who never seem to notice that working people still have to drive to work, farmers still have to harvest their crops and families still have to get their kids to school.
Here is the part Canadians are beginning to understand very clearly: Every time gas prices rise, government revenues rise as well. Ottawa profits from expensive energy, while ordinary Canadians are punished by it. That is why the finance minister's comments were astonishingly tone-deaf when he claimed that the Liberals had acted faster and more comprehensively than peer countries.
Canadians are not looking for a trophy in international political theatre. They are looking at their bank accounts, they are looking at their grocery bills, they are looking at the cost of filling up the family vehicle and wondering how much further they can stretch a paycheque that already feels exhausted before it even arrives. Meanwhile, countries around the world cut fuel taxes to help their citizens weather rising costs.
Conservatives proposed removing all federal taxes on gas and diesel for the rest of the year to save families roughly 25¢ a litre, or about $1,200 for a family of four. The Liberals' response was to offer barely one-third of the relief for barely one-third of the year, and then they presented it as though they had moved mountains on behalf of struggling Canadians.
Margaret Thatcher understood something modern Liberals never seem to grasp: When governments make energy expensive, they make everything expensive. Energy is not a luxury item. Energy moves food across the country. Energy powers tractors, delivery trucks, ambulances, factories, school buses and construction equipment. When energy costs rise, the cost of absolutely everything rises with it.
Canadians are already at the breaking point. Nearly three-quarters of Canadians say that rising food and gas prices are straining their finances. More than four in 10 Canadians are less than $200 away from not being able to pay their bills. Members can think about that. The cost of one unexpected repair bill, one extra grocery trip or one tank of gas is how close to the edge millions of Canadians are living after a decade of Liberal credit card budgets, inflationary deficits and economic mismanagement. While ordinary Canadians cut back, governments keep spending like there is no tomorrow.
The truckers delivering groceries pay more for fuel. The farmers harvesting crops pay more for fuel. The manufacturers shipping goods pay more for fuel. Every added cost lands on the kitchen tables of ordinary Canadian families. That is the real-world consequence of expensive energy. This is not a theoretical economics discussion over a catered lunch in Ottawa. These are real families making painful decisions every single day.
The government acts as though lowering fuel taxes would somehow break the economy. When Conservatives are calling for these tax breaks, we were not proposing another complicated subsidy program with more paperwork, more bureaucracy and more consultants billing taxpayers by the hour. We are simply saying that the government should stop taking so much money from Canadians in the first place and let them keep more of what they earn. That is the simplest form of relief possible.
The government's job is not to stand at the gas pump with its hand out every time Canadians try to get to work. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said that the Liberals' temporary plan would only save the average household about $124 total. Canadians cannot run a family budget on symbolic gestures. Conservatives are proposing relief that would actually have impact. The Liberals simply do not want to give up the revenue.
At the heart of this debate lies a very simple question: Who should keep that money? Should it remain in the pockets of the men and women who rise early, work long hours, drive trucks, build the homes, harvest the crops and keep this country moving, or should more of it flow to Ottawa, where the government has developed an endless appetite for spending but remarkably little interest in restraint?
Conservatives believe Canadians have already paid enough. After a decade of Liberal deficits and taxes, families are not asking for luxuries. They are asking for breathing room. They want to drive to work without feeling punished every time they fill their tanks. They want to walk through the grocery store without calculating what necessities must be left at the checkout counter. Whenever Canadians raise these concerns, they are told by the Liberals that they have already acted, that the economy is doing great and that it is one of the best economies in the G7. Somehow the answer to rising costs is always more bureaucracy, more intervention and more taxes collected from the people who are already struggling to stay afloat.
The House has a choice to make. We can continue down the Liberal path, where expensive energy is treated as a political virtue, where taxes quietly rise every time families fill their tanks and where government grows larger while ordinary Canadians grow poorer, or we can return to the simple principle that built strong economies in the first place, which is that working people are better stewards of their own money than government will ever be.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here to listen to the remarks of my colleague. If she wants to talk about affordability, I am sure she knows that the three things that concern Canadians are the price of rent, the price of food and the price of gas.
I am sure she will go back to her constituents to say that Canada has taken the lead in helping Canadians with more affordable homes. I am sure she is going to talk to her constituents on June 5, when 12 million Canadians will get the boost they need to cope with the inflation we have seen in the price of food. I am sure she will say that the federal government removed the federal excise tax on gas.
The question I have for the member is this: Is she asking the provinces to remove the taxes they have put on fuel across the nation? That is an interesting question. I would like the member to explain to the House what she is asking of the provinces.
Mr. Speaker, this ultimately comes down to priorities. The government has become far too comfortable with collecting more money every time gas prices rise while pretending that higher costs are somehow beyond their control.
However, Canadians do not have the luxury of pretending. They feel these costs every day when they buy groceries, commute to work, heat their homes or run a small business. Despite all the speeches and headlines, the Liberals are still refusing to take the simple steps that would provide immediate relief, which would be to remove all federal taxes on gas and diesel and to scrap the costly clean fuel standard.
Mr. Speaker, we just came back from two weeks in our constituencies, where we had the opportunity to meet with the people we represent. In my riding of Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, I heard story after story of families and small businesses that are struggling.
I wonder if the member could share with us what she heard in her riding at the other end of the country. I represent a riding in Ontario; she represents one in British Columbia. I wonder if she would share with us the types of things she was hearing. Perhaps it was different than what I was hearing in my riding.
Mr. Speaker, I heard the very same things in my riding. I also heard that, at the end of the day, Canadians are looking for common sense, not political theatre.
The Liberals have created a system where rising gas prices benefit government revenues because every increase at the pump means more tax revenue flowing to Ottawa. Meanwhile, ordinary Canadians absorb the consequences as higher fuel costs ripple through the entire economy, making food, transportation and everyday life more expensive. There is nothing stopping the government from delivering meaningful relief except its own unwillingness to give up the revenue.
Canadians deserve more than symbolic gestures and temporary announcements.
Mr. Speaker, before I ask my question, there is something that the members opposite have been saying over and over again, which is that, in 2014, oil prices were what they are now and gasoline prices were much lower. That is just not correct. It is factually incorrect. Perhaps they should stop saying that.
Oil prices started 2014 at $100 a barrel, and they closed the year at $57. That was the year of shale oil in the U.S. There were massive oil inventories, and that is why gasoline prices came way down. It is not the taxes. Come on.
[Translation]
My question is about support for families.
[English]
Does my colleague think assistance to families should be targeted, or should it be generalized so that rich people get the same relief as poor people?
Mr. Speaker, the point is that the government acted too little, too late and only temporarily.
The Liberal plan provides a fraction of the relief that Canadians need, and it is for only part of the year, while the other federal costs remain layered on energy. Even according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the average household will only save $124. That may help a little, but it is not serious relief for families facing high gas, grocery, rent and mortgage costs. Canadians need meaningful savings at the pump, not a temporary announcement designed to make the government look like it solved the problem.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and set the record straight. We have heard a lot of things this morning, but I believe that folks listening at home want the facts. They know we are facing the biggest energy crisis in decades, according to the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
I am therefore very pleased to take part in today's debate on an issue that affects all Canadians. We are well aware that affordability is the number one concern of Canadians. We are talking about the cost of housing, the cost of groceries and, of course, the cost of gas. I also want to say that Canada is not immune to the global situation. In fact, we discussed this very issue with our G7 colleagues when we met last week.
Canada is proving itself to be a leader in affordability. Canada has taken targeted measures that will help families and Canadians across the country. I would even go so far as to say that, in international discussions, people often view Canada as a country that has used its fiscal capacity wisely to help families and households in their time of need.
The rapidly changing global environment is creating uncertainty for businesses, workers and families. People are saying that there is a fog of uncertainty shrouding the planet right now, and I would say that Canada, in such a context, is in a position to take concrete action to help people and certainly to help businesses, workers and households.
Faced with this situation, the government is focusing on what it can control, which is to build a stronger economy to lower the cost of living for Canadians and to build the strongest and most resilient economy in the G7. We are particularly mindful of the pressures caused by rising gas prices in a global environment marked by significant geopolitical tensions. As I said, Canadians fully understand the geopolitical situation facing countries around the world.
[English]
That is exactly why we acted. There have been a lot of speeches this morning, but what Canadians want to see is action, and that is what our government has been delivering.
The International Energy Agency has called this the most severe energy crisis in history. That is the backdrop that we are all facing. It is the largest energy crisis in history. In fact, that is why the measures we have taken in affordable housing, groceries and suspending the federal excise tax on fuel are making a difference in the lives of Canadians.
Last month, I joined the Prime Minister here in Ottawa to introduce a temporary suspension of the federal fuel excise tax on gasoline, diesel and aviation fuels. Since April 20 and until Labour Day, we are ensuring Canadians will not have to pay the fuel excise tax at the pumps. For us, this was a priority to help Canadians and businesses manage these global pressures. This is expected to reduce Canadians' bill at the gas station by 10¢ per litre on regular gasoline and 4¢ on diesel. This represents almost $6 when filling a typical 50-litre tank of fuel. That is meaningful support for Canadians and consumers.
This measure will also help reduce operating costs for businesses in the food, agriculture, housing, construction and trucking sectors, because we know that, with lower costs and greater financial strength, businesses can hire more workers and confidently build and export more products to global markets. It would also help Canadian families save on their transportation costs as they set out to explore our beautiful country this summer. The suspension is estimated to provide relief of over $2.4 billion in 2026 and 2027.
I just want to remind my colleague who was talking about additional revenues that, as I outlined in the spring economic update, two-thirds of the additional revenues that we have received have been used to support Canadian families at a time of need. This is just one of several measures we have put forward to alleviate the pressure of the higher cost of fuel on Canadian households and budgets.
I expect that my Conservative colleagues who are here this morning will support Bill C-30 because it is a bill that would actually put in motion what we have just discussed this morning. It is good to ask questions, and it is good to make speeches, but it is even better to vote in favour of a bill that would make a difference in the lives of Canadians. I can see in their eyes and in their smiles that they intend to vote, and we are going to look for that. Their constituents are going to be watching to see if they vote for support that would reduce fuel costs.
Right after taking office, the Prime Minister cancelled the federal consumer fuel charge, effective April 1, 2025, in a move that directly helped Canadians save money at the pump. We have taken a suite of measures to reduce the price of fuel across the country. Our government also removed the requirement for provinces and territories to have a consumer-facing carbon price as of that date. These actions helped reduce gas prices in most provinces and territories by about 18¢ per litre in comparison to 2024‑25. Our measures have been targeted and are effective. If we compare the measures that Canada has been taking among the G7, we will see that they are very targeted. They have been very effective, and a number of countries are looking for the leadership of Canada, in terms of the measures that will help Canadians.
[Translation]
For many Canadians, the cost of groceries and basic necessities remains a constant concern. We know that, because that is what we are hearing right across the country. That is why we decided to take action. We did not wait; we decided to take action to support families.
We are all aware that the pandemic caused a global spike in inflation that drove up the cost of food and essentials. People watching at home understand that Canada is not immune to global pressures such as climate change, tariffs, supply chain disruptions and fuel costs. People understand that Canada is not immune to all this, but we are able to act on what we control. That is exactly what we have done.
Food prices have gone up faster than inflation due to shocks caused by global supply chain disruptions, new tariffs, climate-related weather events and, as I already mentioned, geopolitical tensions.
In the face of this reality, our government has taken concrete steps to make life more affordable in the short term, while strengthening food security and supporting innovation in the agriculture and agri-food sector.
I spoke with our colleagues at the Union des producteurs agricoles, or UPA, to better understand how we can become more resilient, produce more here at home and be less dependent on foreign imports.
To support those most affected by rising food prices, in January, our government announced the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit, a very targeted and important benefit that will help over 12 million Canadians.
Every member of the House here today has constituents in their ridings who will benefit from this measure because it will help people cover the basics of everyday life. This measure is based on the GST credit. The benefit will provide an additional $11.7 billion in support over six years. That is close to $12 billion that will go into Canadians' pockets. First, we are talking about a one-time payment that will be issued starting on June 5.
I am counting on all members of the House to tell their constituents that many people will receive this assistance on June 5. The payment will be 50% of the total annual GST credit amount for 2025‑26 and will provide immediate assistance of $3.1 billion to eligible individuals and families.
In addition, the GST credit will be increased by 25% for five years starting in July. There is a one-time payment, but we have also included support for the coming years to help families cope with the cost of groceries.
The increase will provide an additional $8.6 billion in support and will also enable approximately 500,000 new individuals and families to benefit from this new program. This is substantial support.
Just yesterday, I was talking to people in a grocery store. I was also talking to the managers and telling them that putting money like this directly into people's pockets will help many families cope with the rising food prices we have been seeing. In practical terms, a family of four could receive up to $1,890 this year and about $1,400 a year for the next four years. A single person could receive up to $950 this year and about $700 a year thereafter. These are significant sums for nearly 12 million Canadians.
[English]
Our government is also delivering major tax cuts to give Canadians a break because we have heard how we can help Canadians. Since July 1, 2025, Canadians have been paying less tax after the government lowered the first marginal personal income tax rate from 15% to 14%. This was the very first thing we did as a government. The very first thing we did was to lower taxes for 22 million Canadians, and this is making a difference. This is responsible. This is a measure that has been helping everyone in this country. Thanks to this change, 22 million Canadians benefit from tax relief of up to $420 per person, saving two-income families up to $840 a year.
Our government has also eliminated the 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.
In addition, and I think we should all be very proud as members of the House, we made the national school food program permanent. This is something that will be remembered for generations. It is providing school meals for up to 400,000 children each year, saving families with children in school who benefit from it an estimated $800 annually on groceries. Helping our children in making sure they have a good meal to start the day is, I am sure, something every member of the House should feel good about. I am thinking about the member who will have his grandchildren soon. This is a measure that is helping our kids and our grandkids yet to come and that is very well liked by families.
However, we do not stop there. There is more good news. We have also introduced the automatic federal benefits, starting with the 2026 tax year. We looked at what was going on in different countries, we looked at best practices, and I would say that automatic federal benefits are one of them. This will ensure that 5.5 million low-income Canadians automatically receive the benefits they qualify for by the 2028 tax year, including the Canada groceries and essentials benefit and the Canada child benefit.
We have also moved forward with ambitious pro-competition measures in the telecom and financial sectors to strengthen competition, reduce prices, offer more choice to Canadians and allow Canadians to more easily switch between providers and pay lower bank and service fees.
In conclusion, because I am eager to get questions from my colleagues so that I can say even more about what we are doing to support Canadians, our plan is moving Canada's economy from reliance to resilience. Canadians understand that we need to invest in our economy to build the strongest economy in the G7. That is why, in budget 2025, I was pleased to introduce and present generational investments in housing, infrastructure, competitiveness, innovation and our defence. It is a plan that has been applauded by international organizations like the International Monetary Fund, which says Canada has the strongest fiscal position of the G7.
In fact, we have the lowest net debt to GDP and one of the lowest deficits in the G7, and we are one of only two countries in the G7 that has a AAA credit rating. The strong fiscal position we have is allowing us to invest in our future but also to support Canadians now, at a time of need. That is why I am so pleased that, also with Bill C-30, we have put a number of measures in the spring economic update that would support Canadians, build our country and make our communities safer.
I look forward to hearing from my colleagues. I know they are keen to support Bill C-30 as well. They understand that we need to build Canada strong. They understand that we need to empower Canadians. They understand that we need to build safer communities. We will continue to work with all members of the House to make sure that we build this country strong and that we have the strongest economy in the G7.
Mr. Speaker, the minister highlighted three areas that are very important to Canadian families, which are housing costs, food prices and gas prices. He has been sitting around the cabinet table since 2017. This is his ninth year. Here is where we are nine years later. Nine years later, we have the highest cost of housing in the country. We have high food prices. In all of the G7 countries, Canada has the worst food affordability. That is our record there. Of course, gas prices have become astronomical.
Now, apart from presenting the spring economic update, the minister has an opportunity to support our very sensible common-sense motion to reduce all fuel taxes for the rest of this year. Will he stand up and show some true leadership that will bring real, meaningful—
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that my Conservative colleague realizes the reality in this country. He is right to say that what concerns Canadians is the price of rent, the price of food and the price of gas. I am sure he is going to go back to his constituents soon, and the good news is that he will be able to explain to them that in fact the Government of Canada has already acted to provide more affordable housing, which is the first pillar of affordability. That way, the grocery and essentials benefit is going to make a difference in the lives of 12 million Canadians.
He is probably going to talk also about the fact that we have reduced taxes for the first bracket, from 15% to 14%, helping 22 million Canadians. I am sure, because I know him, that he is going to talk also about the fact that we have suspended the fuel excise tax, which is providing meaningful support to Canadians across the country.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the minister on his speech, in which he gave a fine demonstration of his ability to speak English. In his speech, he extolled the virtues of suspending 10¢ of the excise tax on gas, saying that this temporary suspension would help with affordability. Perhaps he forgot to mention to us that this measure will also increase the deficit.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer told us who would benefit from this. It seems that the poorest 20% of people will save $59, whereas the wealthiest 20% will save $211. Could the minister explain his decision to favour the rich?
Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question also gives me the opportunity to speak in the language of Molière, whom we all admire here in the House.
The Bloc Québécois members may not have said it yet, but I look at them this morning and I can see it in their smiles and in their hearts. I think they are going to vote for Bill C-30 because they know that Quebeckers need this help. I believe that, as members here in the House, we all need to support Canadians at a time like this.
When my colleague goes to his riding, he is aware, just as I am, of the issues surrounding housing affordability, grocery prices, and gas prices. These are important issues, but it is important to note that Bill C-30 will bring this measure into effect. I hope that my colleague will not only ask a question this morning, but also take meaningful action to support lowering costs and lend a helping hand to Canadian families.
Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to welcome the Minister of Finance to my riding a few times already, and I know that he has seen all the benefits that our programs have delivered for families since we were both first elected in 2015.
Earlier, I heard Conservative members say that they would stand up for Canadians. However, when it came time to do so, for example on the Canada child benefit or the national school food program, a bill that I introduced in the House, they voted against those things. Those measures would have helped the families in those members' ridings, but once again, these are the kinds of things that they do to avoid helping families.
I would like to ask the Minister of Finance to tell us how all these programs have benefited families in my region and in his.
Mr. Speaker, I recognize the wisdom behind my colleague's question. Yes, when it was time to stand up for Canadians, the Conservatives remained seated. When it was time to stand up for families, the Conservatives were nowhere to be found. I remember the votes. It is important to vote for affordability at every opportunity.
My colleague is right. What I saw with him in New Brunswick, we are seeing across the country. That is why Canada is a leader. We have taken action on affordable housing. That is the first pillar of affordability. We were there with the Canada child benefit. We want to talk about what we have already done, which is obviously helping families across the country. If there is one thing people watching at home know, it is that we on this side of the House will always stand up to support families and Canadians when they need it.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for his speech.
My question is about the temporary suspension of the federal fuel excise tax and the fact that, under former prime minister Stephen Harper, that tax was used exclusively to fund urban transit.
If this fuel excise tax is suspended, what revenue will go to urban public transit?
That is the responsibility of another level of government, local government, which depends on this tax for urban transit.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for that important question. I am grateful to her. She has always encouraged the House to consider measures that will help Canadians across the country. She will be pleased to learn that, as I was saying, in the 2026 spring economic update, we actually put two-thirds of that $7 billion in additional revenue toward helping people. We are helping them with housing and groceries because I believe that is what matters right now.
Yes, investing for the future is important, but people are worried about making it to the end of the week or the end of the month. They want us to help them now, while we are building a strong country together. I think my colleague understands that we have demonstrated fiscal discipline while showing up with compassion to help Canadians in their time of need.
Mr. Speaker, I will start with some praise for the minister. There is no doubt that, in the House, the minister uses Canada's two official languages in his various speeches in a very equitable manner. I want to take this opportunity to thank him for that.
However, now I would like to challenge the minister. The motion I moved today has to do with the gas tax. Right now, we have a half measure, or technically a third of a measure, that ends on Labour Day. Labour Day coincides with back-to-school season, when families usually incur additional expenses.
I want to know why the minister is unwilling to adopt the Conservative proposal to eliminate all gas taxes for all of 2026. I challenge the minister to directly respond to my question.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to compliment my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska for speaking in both languages in the House. Doing that in the House is important.
My reply has two parts. First, I know many people in Richmond—Arthabaska, and I think that his constituents want fiscal responsibility and discipline. They understand that additional revenues have been raised and they also understand that a portion of these revenues are going toward help with housing and groceries. These measures are going to support affordability. I think that the impact of temporarily suspending the excise tax on gas is already having a direct impact at the pumps.
However, my colleague is well aware that over 80% of the price at the pump is determined by global oil prices. We are ready to do our part, and we have done it. I think that the people of Richmond—Arthabaska can see that our government will always be there to help them in their time of need.
Mr. Speaker, I would first like to inform my colleagues that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Joliette—Manawan, who does excellent work in the House and who used to be our finance critic. I am assuming he will have a lot to say because he is now our critic for economic affairs. These are equally important roles because they are closely related.
Today, we are debating a Conservative motion that, not surprisingly, once again deals with oil and gas. That comes as no surprise because it is extremely rare to have a Conservative opposition day that does not focus on these issues. As far as I remember, it has happened only once in this Parliament—and I believe that I pointed it out to the House when it did—even though the Conservatives have an opposition day almost every week or sometimes even twice a week. I invite them to try a little harder and to be a little more creative next time.
In essence, what the motion before us is saying—and we may have a chance to talk more about this later—is that the cost of living is high, people are having a hard time making ends meet, and the cost of gas went up, so the gas tax should go down.
There is one thing in their motion that I actually think is good. They point out that the price of gas is 13% higher here than in the United States—we pay an extra 22¢ per litre—and that gas now costs 50¢ more per litre than when global oil prices were at the same level in 2014.
That is pretty interesting. They themselves are indirectly admitting that there is a problem. Why is gas pricier at the pump if the price per barrel is the same as it was in 2014? Are some people cashing in along the way? That is something worth exploring. My Conservative colleagues may have an opportunity to elaborate on that statement because we do not often hear them criticize oil companies, which are more accustomed to lining their own pockets than the other way around.
I also want to note that the Bloc Québécois will be voting against this motion. That should come as no surprise to anyone. We are not big fans of oil and gas companies. Essentially, if this measure is implemented, there is a risk that the deficit will get even bigger and that oil and gas companies will get more leeway to raise their prices so they can line their own pockets even more.
For our part, we work for everyday people. We do not work for the oil and gas companies, unlike the Conservatives and the Liberals. These days, the Liberals have teamed up with the Conservatives to defend the oil and gas companies practically on a full-time basis. I think that is just about the only thing they have accomplished in the year since the new Prime Minister took office.
I want to get back to the fact that the Conservatives are saying today that the Liberals have not done enough. In their speeches so far, the Liberals have said that, a few months ago, they cut gas prices by 10¢ a litre, which is the equivalent of the excise tax. It is a temporary measure that is theoretically supposed to help the taxpayers who are struggling the most and that will be in effect until September.
We said it at the time about this measure. The Conservatives keep making a big fuss about the federal deficit. Let us be clear: the federal deficit is significant, it has reached record levels, and it is worrisome. I think they are right to make such a fuss about it. We do the same on many occasions.
Generally speaking, when the Conservatives propose measures, we would expect them to be aimed at reducing the deficit, given the context. Instead, they are proposing measures that will only increase the deficit even further.
They are not satisfied with the $2.4 billion the Liberals added to the deficit by temporarily eliminating the 10¢ excise tax. They want even more than that. They say one thing and do the opposite.
As we know, the Liberals have already lowered the price at the pump by 10¢ and temporarily eliminated the excise tax, not out of the goodness of their hearts, but because the Conservatives were constantly demanding a reduction in the gas tax. They ultimately came up with a sort of compromise.
The Liberals decided they would do something symbolic to give the impression they are helping people. The hope was that this would ease the pressure and they could say they had cut the gas tax and beat the Conservatives at their own game. That is essentially the Liberal reasoning behind it. The Liberals are telling people they will save money at the pump, but the reality is quite different. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has done the math and said that it is not the poorest Canadians who will benefit from this situation, but the richest.
The government is telling the poorest 20% that they will get an extra $59, which is maybe the cost of filling a Honda Civic when gas is cheaper than it is at the moment. The richest 20%, on the other hand, will receive $211, which is far more money. Based on my calculations, they will get four to five times more money than the poorest people will. Is that what helping people is all about? Is that what helping ordinary citizens is all about? I am not entirely convinced that the government has chosen the best approach.
The Conservatives are proposing something similar today. They do not want to just suspend the excise tax temporarily; rather, they want implement permanent measures, or at least measures that would be in effect until the end of 2026, measures that would affect not only the excise tax but also the GST. I want to point out in passing that the Conservatives are always talking about making life more affordable for Canadians, but they have never proposed removing the GST on electricity, for example, even though electricity is a clean energy. No, they are proposing to eliminate the GST on gas, which emits greenhouse gases. Perhaps they could add electricity next time.
The Conservatives are always saying that we should operate on a level economic playing field, that we must not subsidize electrification. Basically, they want to help people, but only those who choose gas rather than electricity. That was just a quick editorial comment, by the way. Basically, what I want to say is that, rather than adding $2.4 billion to the deficit, the Conservatives' proposal will add about $5 billion to it. That is not $5 billion including the $2.4 billion, but $5 billion on top of the $2.4 billion that has already been approved. That would mean approximately $7.4 billion in tax breaks for oil, which is a lot of money.
We are not opposed to helping those most in need. We are not opposed to helping the middle class. However, as the Parliamentary Budget Officer's calculations have already shown, this kind of tax will primarily benefit those at the top rather than those at the bottom. We have a problem with that, especially when we see that the wealthiest are ultimately the ones who benefit. What the Conservatives are telling us is that the rich need to get richer and get even more tax breaks. Meanwhile, the government will have to tighten its belt, and everyone will have to pay for that deficit.
What is even more interesting is when the Conservatives mention that the price of oil has gone up over the past year. Why has it gone up? We know that it is because of the war in Iran. How has this affected ordinary people? They are paying more, of course. However, who has benefited from higher gas prices and the higher price per barrel? It is not us. It is the oil companies.
Look at Suncor's stock price, for example. In January of this year, Suncor shares were trading at $60. Today, in May, they are trading at around $90. That is a 50% increase. Suncor shareholders have benefited. However, it does not cost the company more to produce oil. It does not cost more to supply its customers. It is making more money off us, but the Conservatives are not putting the blame on them, and neither are the Liberals.
Here is another example. In January, Imperial Oil shares cost $120. Now, in May, they cost $180, which is also an increase of more than 50%. Suncor CEO Rich Kruger was paid $36 million in 2024. I am guessing he can afford to fill his tank. He has the money. Putting gas in his car is no hardship for him.
These are the people the Liberals and Conservatives want to help. I think that is sad, especially since, according to Environmental Defence, fossil fuel subsidies hit the $10‑billion mark in 2025. Oil and gas companies are not giving us a discount on gas even though they were given $10 billion. They are making money hand over fist and their share prices are skyrocketing, yet the Conservatives and the Liberals are eagerly joining forces to help oil companies even more. I think that is outrageous. The government should be helping real people, not oil companies.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank my colleague for his speech. I also commend his party, since he said that the Bloc Québécois will be voting against the Conservative motion. In that regard, we are on the same wavelength.
There are, of course, many other things my colleague mentioned that I do not fully agree with. There is just one aspect that I would like him to clarify for me. He said that the government's measures are just giving the impression of helping people. Does my colleague think that the Canada groceries and essentials benefit is just giving the impression of helping? That benefit will help 12 million Canadians starting on June 5.
Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that when we talk about giving the impression of helping, the parliamentary secretary talks about the benefit for families. There was actually a lot of marketing behind that. I am straying a bit from the subject of the debate, but I want to address this point anyway, because when I saw the government make that announcement, I could not believe it. I saw it as pure demagoguery.
The government used to provide what was called a family allowance or something called the GST credit. Then it decided to basically change the name and call it a grocery benefit, saying it is supposed to help with the cost of groceries. Personally, I think it is crazy that the government thinks it can fool everyone by simply changing the name at the top of the cheque and the name of the program, when it is the same program and the same cheque as before.
As for today's debate on the 10¢ excise tax on gasoline, I think it has been clearly demonstrated that the wealthy will benefit the most, not the poor, and that oil companies are likely to increase their prices even further. Generally speaking, there is a fairly simple principle in marketing that says that prices should be set at the highest possible price that customers are willing to pay. If any flexibility is allowed, what will happen? The oil companies will just raise their prices.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague and friend for his very interesting speech.
Throughout his speech, and especially at the end, he drew a parallel between the measures put in place by the pro-oil Liberal Party and the Conservatives' position. In fact, since the new Prime Minister has been in office, there is no difference between these parties when it comes to defending the oil and gas companies.
The Conservatives are saying that the Liberals keep running large deficits and that the Prime Minister has created a deficit that is twice as high as Justin Trudeau's deficits, which is mind-boggling. However, today, the Conservatives are proposing a measure that will swell the deficit even more.
What does my hon. colleague think about that? Why have the Conservatives become bigger spenders than the Liberals, and why do they want to run larger deficits than the Liberals?
Mr. Speaker, my colleague asked a very good question. I cannot wait to hear how the Conservatives would answer. I cannot answer for them.
What I can say, however, based on my analysis, is that the Conservatives never miss an opportunity to give oil companies a little pat on the back, regardless of how much it will cost taxpayers or how much more it will cost us. Unfortunately, we see that the Liberals have taken lessons from the Conservatives. According to Environmental Defence, we are talking about $10 billion in 2025. Consider the Liberals' proposed Trans Mountain pipeline, which cost taxpayers $34 billion, or the $1 billion in fees due under the UN convention that the Liberals are going to cover for the Bay du Nord project.
The Conservatives never see any problem when it comes to helping out oil companies, yet they rarely show up to help ordinary folks.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue along the same lines as my colleague. The member said that the government is just giving the impression of helping people. Is he willing to acknowledge at least one measure that has helped Quebeckers, or is his strategy to deny that any progress has been made, for political reasons?
Mr. Speaker, I could respond very quickly by mentioning the infamous $800 million tied to the carbon tax, which no province actually paid, yet they received funds anyway when the carbon tax was abolished. People in the rest of Canada received cheques anyway. In Quebec, we paid for the cheques that people in the rest of Canada received. I think we got taken for a ride. That $800 million was never seen again. Maybe the Liberals will make an announcement about that today. I would be very happy to hear one.
Mr. Speaker, the poor Conservative Party has been outmanoeuvred by the Liberals on its own turf, not on some minor detail or side issue, but on a central priority. The Liberals are rolling out the red carpet for the fossil fuel industry as if it were a gala. They are telling the industry to step right in, make itself at home, and take everything. They want more oil, more gas, and more pipelines. We can talk about the climate later, when it is too late. From subsidies to suspended laws, anything goes, and they are not even embarrassed. Things got so bad that the former environment minister quit cabinet. He has been clear that what his government is doing today goes further than what Harper did. That is saying something. When a former Liberal minister says the government has gone too far, then things are really not looking good.
Analysts are watching this unfold and they are all saying the same thing: Today's Liberals are more pro-oil than the Conservatives are. That used to be the Conservative Party's turf. What is more, there are actually about 15 Liberal MPs who think this makes no sense, but they are protesting in silence. They are hiding in a corner, probably whispering over their coffee. The result is clear: The Conservative Party has been outmanoeuvred on its home turf.
It is the same old story with today's motion. The government already suspended the excise tax over a month ago. It is a done deal. The Conservatives show up after the fact, out of breath, and say that they too want to suspend it, but that they want more than that. They throw in some other taxes to be scrapped to make it look like they are innovating, but everyone has seen through their ploy. We have also seen the real effect of this measure. Prices fall slightly and refinery margins rise. The result is that the consumer gains nothing. The deficit, meanwhile, takes a $2.4-billion hit. The trade-off is quite clear. There is no tangible benefit for regular folks, yet there is a hefty bill for everyone. Now the Conservatives are coming along and saying we should keep going and do more. When something is not working, the solution, of course, is to do more of the same. How very logical.
While people are paying more at the pumps, the oil companies are unaffected. They are pocketing the entire price increase. Gas is being sold here at global prices, even though what is happening in the Strait of Hormuz is having no impact whatsoever on our supply. The gas we use here comes from the west and the United States, but prices are still keeping pace with the global panic. How convenient. While the price goes up, oil and gas companies are making record profits. These are not just good profits; they are record profits.
That money does not even stay here. Most of it goes directly to the United States because most of the western oil companies are owned by American investors. We are paying more to make foreigners rich. I want to quote from a Canadian Press article published last month:
In an interview with The Canadian Press, former federal environment minister Catherine McKenna described the leaders of Canada's oil industry as “fat cats” close to Donald Trump who are “taking us for fools” and making “huge profits” from the war while “feeding the climate crisis”, “putting the economy at risk” and “demanding subsidies”.
Wow. The Conservatives keep telling us that gas prices are 50¢ higher than they were in 2014. In 2014, the Canadian dollar was worth almost one U.S. dollar. Today, that is no longer the case. Oil is sold in U.S. dollars. That means that we are comparing apples to oranges. However, that is the kind of detail that gets in the way of a good story and they like telling stories. Meanwhile, oil companies are raking in money as though it were an Olympic sport. Regardless of what happens elsewhere, we continue to pay. It is a convenient system, especially for those who can cash in. When even gas stations start offering discounts on gas, it might be because the price hikes are not as inevitable as some would have us believe.
The Conservatives also say that deficits are dangerous. Their solution is to make it even bigger. There comes a point where it is not a contradiction; it is part of the game. They want to cut taxes and lose out on billions of dollars, while refusing to say where they would cut, because that would upset people. They prefer to stay vague than be transparent.
Another problem is that the measure is not targeted and does not focus on helping those who need it most, those who are struggling to pay for groceries and rent. These are folks who earn very little and spend less on gas than the wealthy. The Liberal measure suspending the excise tax until September will save the lowest-income 20% of households $59, while the wealthiest 20% will save $211. That is three and a half times more. That is a lot of money that could have been used to provide more help those who need it most if it had been targeted. Under the Conservative plan, those with more money get more help. It is not complicated. It is simply not fair.
Let me remind the House of something simple that everyone knows, except those who pretend not to understand.
Experts like Luc Godbout have said it clearly: Lowering the gas tax, even temporarily, is a bad idea. This is not rocket science: It is a bad idea. It is bad for balancing the budget because the money disappears, and it is bad for the environment because, strangely enough, when gas is cheaper, people use more of it. He says we have to resist temptation. We cannot try half measures to see what happens or do something just because it sounds good at a press conference. We must resist temptation.
In politics, however, resisting temptation is not always easy. Price reductions are an easy sell. The problem comes later, because the tax will have to be reinstated eventually, and that will not be easy. People get used to paying less, and then the cost goes up. It is like offering a permanent but temporary discount. People do not buy it. In the end, the government is left with lower revenues and a decision that it cannot see through to the end. That is not policy; it is passing the buck.
It is going to take targeted measures, not unilateral cuts, to help those who really need it. We should not just throw money at everyone and hope it lands in the right place. However, implementing targeted measures is more complicated. Simplicity still seems to be very popular, even when it does not work. Coming up with targeted measures is not our friends' strong suit, and besides, gas consumption will go up. That does not help those who are struggling the most, it does not help the environment, and it costs a fortune. It is a bad idea all around. What is more, they want to extend this measure until the end of the year without knowing how long the international situation will last. This is not a plan. It is a knee-jerk reaction. I have said it before and I will say it again: These measures are not targeted.
Why not propose a targeted measure for people with lower incomes and for those living in rural areas, starting with farmers?
I know why they did not go that route. The Liberals did not announce any targeted measures either. Once again, the more someone has, the more they get. It is even worse in Quebec. Some of the measures the Conservatives want to scrap do not even exist in Quebec, yet we are still going to foot the bill for their massive deficit. We always end up paying; that is just how it works. No, this measure is not for everyone.
On top of all that, this is an administrative headache for the other provinces. It is obviously not thought through. It brings up fond memories of the cheques that the Prime Minister sent to the rest of the country last year in the middle of the election campaign. That $814 million was paid for by Quebeckers, but they did not receive a cheque. When the Bloc Québécois demanded a refund, the Conservatives and Liberals voted against it. When it matters, they are far more alike than they let on. This motion is not a solution. It is posturing, and we do not vote for posturing.
The poor Conservatives come up with ideas, only to see that the Liberals have already stolen them and even gotten them passed, not in a watered‑down version, but as a full course meal, including dessert. The Conservatives look at this and wonder what they should do. What do they do? They ratchet it up even more. It is one‑upmanship. It is like two people saying the same thing, but one speaks louder than the other, hoping that this makes their idea sound better. That is not how things work. It simply creates more noise for no reason. When push comes to shove, they have the same agenda, the same instincts and the same solutions. They are two parties with one idea. This is no longer opposition; it is an echo.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his speech, and I thank him for reiterating that the Bloc Québécois will be voting against this motion. We are on the same page, which is great.
I would also like to thank my colleague for pointing out that, lately, our Conservative friends have often referred to the price of gas in 2014. However, what the Conservative members are saying is factually incorrect. I want to thank my colleague for pointing that out as well.
Now I have a question about the groceries and essentials benefit. Does my colleague not think that this is a well‑targeted benefit? We did not simply change the name of the transfer. We are using the GST credit criteria to target those most in need.
Mr. Speaker, yes, this measure is well targeted and it helps people. It is the type of thing we are asking for. What is poorly targeted is the $10 billion invested last year to help oil companies.
I quoted former environment minister Catherine McKenna, who said how much they do not need it and that they are taking advantage of the system.
I have a question. We know that Brookfield has a $16‑billion stake in the pipelines. Were the investments in pipelines deliberately targeted? I am wondering the same thing about the subsidies for small modular reactors that will go to the oil sands, because Brookfield has subsidiaries in that sector. Was that support deliberately targeted?
When we start looking at the big picture of these massive deficits, we see that there are targeted measures to help the less fortunate, but there are also targeted supermeasures for big corporations that seem to benefit Brookfield, a company in which the Prime Minister still owns at least $10 million in shares, as far as we know.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank and congratulate my friend and colleague from Joliette—Manawan.
I am not an economist, but we saw gas prices drop slightly when the fuel excise tax was abolished only to go back up to where they were before. Could it be that oil companies are pocketing extra profits?
We also know that gas prices are rising even though oil from the Strait of Hormuz does not affect us because we get our oil from Canada and the United States. Why are prices rising when our oil is not from sources that have dried up in the Strait of Hormuz?
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend for his question.
First, the price of a barrel follows the global price. When there is trouble in Iran, there could potentially be a shortage of oil to the tune of 20%, which drives up prices, including the prices here, even though extraction costs do not go up.
When the excise tax on gasoline was reduced by 10¢, we saw that the price at the pump went down, but then continued to go up because of the price per barrel. Refineries here quickly saw their margins increase by 10¢, fully offsetting the excise tax. This suggests that refineries and oil companies, which seek to maximize their profits, as my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères was saying, saw a window of opportunity there. When the government pulled back, they thought they could charge a higher price and occupy that space. Is that the solution? That is what the Liberals did, and that is what the Conservatives are telling us to do even more.
In the end, this mainly helps the oil companies, which are making huge profits. That is not the solution.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech and congratulate him. I really enjoy working with him.
The economic statement refers to the electrification strategy and the strategy to protect nature. We are maintaining our international investments. We are also investing in clean infrastructure.
Does my colleague agree with those investments?
Mr. Speaker, it is also a pleasure to work with the parliamentary secretary, particularly on social housing issues.
Do I agree with those investments? They are important, but the government is also taking steps backwards. For example, there is $5 billion less for public transit, and we have other similar concerns. The government is taking several steps backwards, while still providing a lot of assistance to oil companies.
The fact that the former environment minister is saying that the current government's environmental policies, especially its support for oil companies, are worse than those under the Harper government is a big deal, and analysts are saying that he is absolutely right. In my opinion, the evidence is clear.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Essex, who has been a breath of fresh air since he came to this House. He has done a great job. He represents the people of his riding. I have been to his riding and met first-hand all the wonderful people in that area. I want them to know they have a great member. I look forward to working with him for years to come.
In Saskatchewan right now, it is spring seeding time. It is a tough time right now, because seeding is about three weeks later than it should be. People are stressed. They are burning the midnight oil, or burning the candle at both ends, one might say, to get the crop in because of the timely nature of the crops they are planting.
I want to mention this in the little time I have. To farmer friends in my riding, across Saskatchewan and across Canada, slow down, take a breath, relax and be safe out there. To those who are working in agricultural districts or driving down those roads, remember that those farmers are working really hard and they are have time constraints. Give them space on the road. If people see a tractor coming down the road, they should slow down and let them go by. If they see a sprayer, slow down and let them go by. Let them do their business, because it is so crucial right now, in this next week or two, that they get the crop in as quickly as they can.
Trust me when I say these are stressful conditions. Farmers are wet and they are frustrated. I have been there and done that. I have been up to my knees and up to my waist, and I know what it is like to pull a tractor out. I never got the tractor stuck. That was always my dad. I will say that, or at least that is what I will admit to.
Talking about stress leads to what we are talking about today. Canadians are stressed. They are financially stressed. They are feeling the impact of costs going up. They are feeling the impact of their wages just not keeping up with what they have to pay per week or per month for the standard cost of living. We are not talking about surplus things or things that are just a benefit. I am talking about the day-to-day requirements to actually feed a family or put clothes on kids and get them off to school. Those are the types of costs that Canadians are struggling with. In a lot of cases, people are maxing out their credit cards. They are looking at ways to save money, but there is just nothing left to cut.
That is where we, as a government, can play a role. That is one of the proposals we have made today. It is a simple solution that could immediately be implemented, and its impact could be felt immediately, without a huge bureaucracy being created and without a whole pile of spending on administrating and trying to create new programs. It is a very simple choice, which is to remove the fuel tax on diesel and gas. Instantaneously, that would provide relief at the pumps.
It would not only provide relief for the family, but provide relief for the guys who are hauling the food to the warehouse or from the warehouse to the grocery store. It would provide a domino effect of relief through all sectors here in Canada that would make life just that much easier. Hopefully, those costs would trickle down to the consumer and make life just a little easier for that consumer, that Canadian citizen, to make ends meet.
We proposed very simple measures. Get rid of the federal tax on gas and diesel, including the GST, and then permanently scrap the clean fuel standard. I am going to talk about the clean fuel standard right now.
What is frustrating with this tax is that it is a tax. No matter how the Liberals want to bury it, it is a tax and it is a cost that will get through the supply chain to the end consumer. It always does. Those costs are always passed up the chain, and they will probably be passed up with a multiplier effect as margins are added to them all the way through. They end up in the consumer's back pocket, and those costs are hurting it.
This tax also makes our manufacturers, suppliers and international traders uncompetitive in the global marketplace. What do I mean by that? The reality is that these are costs Canadian manufacturers and Canadian producers face, but their competitors around the world do not. These are costs that they have to embed into their pricing as they try to recover the costs and sell abroad that their competition does not have to. Automatically, they have one hand tied behind their back, yet we are telling them to diversify trade, take on new markets and find new ways of doing things.
What do we do? We battle. We are basically putting more costs into the situation they are facing. It just does not make sense.
We want to improve Canada's ability to market and sell around the world, which I agree with. I think those are good, honourable things to do. I have been pro-free trade all my life. Coming from the agriculture sector in Saskatchewan, we trade and we sell stuff around the world. We sell to clients in China, South America, North Africa and Europe. We are doing business around the world all the time. We are competing with Brazilians, Australians and Americans. We are competing with people around the world who do not have those restraints and those embedded costs. It actually makes it tougher for us to compete.
However, we are very creative in Canada. Our farmers are the best in the world. They are quick adopters of new technology. They are very astute and they are competing. They can compete, even though they have had one hand tied behind their back so many times over the last few years. All we are saying is to take the hand from behind their backs and put them on a level playing field. That is what we are saying here by removing the clean fuel standard. It is not just farmers, but manufacturers and the whole Canadian economy that could find more relief and a greater ability to compete internationally by having this removed from their cost platform.
I want to circle back to families and the stresses they are facing. I go to events. We held passport clinics in the riding a few weeks back, I sat down at the table and talked to people who were coming in to get passports for their kids. They may travel over the next five or six years. When I held these clinics over the last two or three years, people were talking about a trip they were going to take the next year or the year after. When I talk to them now, they say, “We want to get our passport because it is convenient and it is easy, and thanks for offering the service, but I do not know if we will ever use it because I just cannot afford to travel. I just cannot afford to take on any luxuries like travel, but I want to have my passport.”
When we drive down and ask how they are doing, what is going on in their family and how their babies are, I hear a little softening in their tone and see them biting on their lip or a tear in their eye. They say, “It is tough. We had to make the choice this year between letting our kids play baseball or play golf. We had to make the choice this year of whether we are going to put our kids in swimming lessons. We looked at the cost and we just cannot afford it.” They want to make sure that their kids have all of the opportunities to play different sports and experience what they all grew up with, but they say, “I do not know if we can afford it. I do not know if we can do it.”
I was talking to one guy. He said, “I have three jobs because I want my kids to play hockey. I want them to experience hockey, but that means I have three jobs.” His wife is also working in that family of four. Two parents are working just so their kids can play hockey. Something is wrong with this equation.
Looking back, what has happened? What is wrong? It is 10 years of bad policy. It has been 10 years of ignoring what really needs to be done through policy to make sure that Canadians can thrive, grow, experience the benefits of being a Canadian citizen and have the “top of the world” lifestyle that we became accustomed to in the years before the last 10 years of the Liberal government. These are the things that people are looking at, and they are saying, “It never used to be this way. Why is it now?”
Let us look at it. We drove away industry. We brought in policies that no other country in the world has. We have done it all under the guise of being for the environment. I think a lot of people would agree that it is important to take care of our environment, and I agree with that. Canadians would agree with that, but they did not need to be the Boy Scouts of it. They did not need to be the ones doing it all by themselves. Keep in mind that we produce 2% of global emissions, yet we thought we were taking on the world and we are trying to find a way to solve 100% of global emissions. We cannot do it by ourselves, but the government is asking our businesses and our families to pay for all of this with really no benefit at the end of the day to actually make a change in the environment.
Going back to these families, they are struggling. They are looking for a way to make ends meet. They want to give their kids a good quality of life. They want to see some hope and a light at the end of the tunnel. They want to see that they are through this rough patch and this structural change that is going on in the U.S. and things like that, and that there is a light at the end of the tunnel. However, from the current government, there has been no policy, really, that has impacted people's day-to-day functions.
The Liberals talk about different subsidy programs that they put in place, and they all sound good, but at the end of the day, they are not hitting the mark. They are not actually helping Canadian families. With respect to this policy and these changes, if we were to implement them tomorrow, the impact would be felt immediately. At least families would know right out to the end of the year that for the summer season and going into the fall, they would have some relief. They would know that as the economy picks up and as their job and everything else stabilize, they would be good.
That is why this common-sense Conservative approach is something the Liberals should steal. They are good at stealing good Conservative policies. Why not steal this one? Canadians would benefit from it.
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. The Conservatives want the government to take some specific actions, yet when we take actions to support the issue of affordability, the Conservatives vote against them.
Let me give a good example. I hope the member can relate to a problem that has been around for generations. When I was first elected in 1988, people were talking about children not being able to learn on empty stomachs. This Prime Minister and this government have made a permanent national food program for our schools.
Does the member see it as a positive thing, on the issue of affordability, that young children have meals while they are at school?
Mr. Speaker, I know the sincerity of the hon. member's heart. His approach to it is one way of approaching it. Is it the right way? Is it the most efficient way? That is where we would differ.
The need is there. There is no question about it. However, I would like to make sure that families have good jobs, high-paying jobs, so they do not have to go to the federal government for a food program. I would like to make sure that they keep that money in their back pocket, so that they can spend it as they choose. That is the difference between the Conservative approach and the Liberal approach. Liberals would like to create a new bureaucracy, and they would like to dole out the money as they see fit. No, people should keep their money, so they can spend it as they see fit. They worked hard to earn it.
While we understand that the issues are there, there are different ways of approaching it. Our way makes more sense. That is why we should do it the Conservative way.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer found that cutting taxes on fuel, such as the excise tax, mainly benefits the wealthiest Canadians, who use more gas. Over time, oil companies tend to raise their prices to increase their profit margins.
What does my colleague think about that?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I understand where the member is coming from. Actually, it depends on the demographics. If someone is in rural Saskatchewan, they are not wealthy, by any means. They are a hard-working family with a middle-class income. Reducing fuel costs for them makes a difference. They do drive. If they are going for groceries, they are driving 50 kilometres one way. That is the reality in Saskatchewan. It may be different in Quebec. I do understand that maybe there are different requirements in Quebec, as there are for a lot of other things for which Quebec has different requirements than the rest of Canada. I acknowledge that.
Here is something very simple for rural people in rural Canada that would benefit them immediately. It would. For somebody in downtown Toronto or downtown Montreal who takes the bus to work, maybe the benefit is not there. Maybe they need something different. If we could let people keep more of their money, or, in this situation, if we get rid of the clean fuel standard so that the cost of what they are buying is cheaper, then they will feel that benefit.
Mr. Speaker, as always, it is just such an honour to serve the amazing, hard-working residents of Essex who have put their trust in me to be their voice in this very uncertain time.
As I always say, I will continue to give all praise to my Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. Without Him, nothing is possible.
I want to say thanks so much to the amazing member for Prince Albert for his passion and his compassion for the residents of his area. I have not been able to visit his riding yet, although I hope to one day, but I have seen his work in action when he has come down to my riding. I want to thank him so much for his vision, his leadership and, quite frankly, his mentorship for myself.
It is not often that many of us have a whole bunch of friends, but a very dear friend of mine is going through an awful tough time right now. Her name is Fran Rankin. I just want to ensure that Fran Rankin's name is put on record in the Hansard. She is the most lovely wife to one of my other best friends, Mark Rankin. I just want her to know that we love her, Essex loves her, and we are bringing all our passion and support for her.
I will get into the business of the day. Really, what I am speaking about today is what I think about when I look at my children, who are 26, 25 and 23. I also have a grandchild, Levi, who just turned five. I think about the future we are leaving them. What legacy are we leaving for future generations? I always go back to this. I believe they just, quite frankly, do not have the same opportunity that we had growing up.
I bought my first house for $149,900 and had zero clue how I was going to pay for it. It was a brand new house with a finished concrete driveway. I thought, how in the world is this even possible? That was some 25 years ago. Unfortunately, what I am hearing now is more of, “Why even bother anymore? I just can't get ahead.” That is wildly sad.
I rise today to address a glaring disconnect between the government's rhetoric and the lived reality of Canadians. While the Liberal government has prioritized the word “affordable”, over four dozen times in budget 2025, for the people I represent, that word is losing its meaning. “Affordable” and “affordability” are good words, but they have begun to ring hollow for families because they lack concrete action. As a man of my word, I am urging the government to make good on its word and ensure that affordability actually translates into relief that Canadians can feel.
I know the government has claimed that it has acted faster and more comprehensively than our global peer countries in response to the increased price in gas, but in Essex, “faster” is not how we describe the rise in the cost of living, and “comprehensive” is not how we describe a tax relief plan that ignores the reality at the pump. I know the government has offered to cut taxes on fuel, which, by the way, affects only a third of the taxes on gas for a third of the year. While the Prime Minister has said that affordability is better now than it has been in recent years, the families in my riding are telling a different story.
Today, I am here to provide a reality check for the government and paint a picture of what affordability would actually look like for Essex residents by telling this House a few stories from real, everyday people who have written to me this year asking for help.
Consider a female auto worker in our region who writes, “As a person living in Kingsville, who commutes to Windsor five, sometimes even six times a week for work, I am asking you to help make life more affordable for your fellow Canadians. The price of gas is at an all-time high, and [the Prime Minister] is blind to what Canadians are currently going through: the lack of affordability and the cost of living crisis.” She is not asking for more rhetoric. She said, “I am reaching out to you today to ask that you help remove the tax on gas.” Further, in Belle River, the frustration is tied to our energy independence: “We need help with gas prices, especially when our gas doesn't come from the Middle East.”
These are not isolated complaints. They are cries for help from a region under immense pressure. When gas prices soar, they act as a tax on every single sector in our economy. As one father in Essex noted, “To the untrained eye there seems to be very little action to control the gas prices we are currently seeing and the resulting increase in the price of everything else a family needs to live. In my family, we have three jobs just to make ends meet. Why is the government not being more proactive in helping the current situation be more manageable for the hard-working middle- and lower-class families?”
In Amherstburg, that anxiety is turning into fear: “gas prices [are] currently getting to a level that is placing a significant financial burden on families.... For many of us in Essex County, driving is a necessity for work, school, and daily life. My fear is that...these prices will continue to rise, and start affecting other commodities such as food and other necessities.”
My constituents are right to be afraid. In Windsor-Essex, where our manufacturing and tool and die sectors are already facing an existential threat from foreign tariffs, high fuel costs are a weight they cannot carry. At the end of the day, the price at the pumps directly correlates with the cost of shipping food, homebuilding and the food that families can afford on the table. Affordability is not just a word for Essex residents. It is something they desperately need.
This is why we are calling on the House to end all federal taxes on gas and diesel for the rest of the year, including the GST, and permanently scrap the clean fuel standard. We must answer this Essex father's question: “Why is the government not being more proactive in helping the current situation be more manageable for the hard-working middle- and lower-class families?”
The government cannot claim that it lacks resources. It pocketed $8 billion in revenue windfall from high global oil prices, roughly $2 billion for every $10 increase on the price of a barrel, yet the response has been nothing shy of chump change. While the Liberals claim that affordability is better than it has been in years, their recent tax cut saved only 10¢ per litre on gas and four cents per litre on diesel. In contrast, the Conservative motion to cut costs at the pump by 25¢ per litre and save a family of four $1,218 per year is a common-sense solution. I know that because Australia, Spain, Ireland, Italy, Germany and Austria, to name a few countries, have already moved to cut fuel taxes or provide direct relief at the pump. Even our neighbours to the south have a competitive advantage because of these taxes. Canadians pay nearly 20% more for fuel than Americans: 20¢ more.
The burden on diesel, the fuel that powers our farmers and our supply chains, is even more nonsensical. As a resident in Amherstburg asked, “How is it possible that we are allowing the oil industry to charge more for diesel than for gasoline fuel?” The answer is clear. Diesel is more expensive because the Liberals have added more tax on diesel: a 10¢ federal excise tax, eight cents of GST and a seven-cent clean fuel standard. One Essex resident wrote me, “If diesel fuel comes down in cost, the transportation of goods will be less, which in effect should lower the cost of goods available for sale.” I could not agree more.
The government needs to exit its utopian world, where we just jet-set around the world and have conversations and photo ops, and instead look at what is happening on Canadian soil.
In closing, I am asking the government to let the middle class succeed by cutting all federal taxes on gas and diesel for the rest of the year, including the GST, and permanently scrap the clean fuel standard. Is it too much to ask? The Liberals have already profited $8 billion from windfall tax revenues. What we are proposing will save a family of four $1,218. As the member of Parliament for Essex, I am asking the House to listen to the voices of Essex residents and hear their struggles. They are hopeful, but they cannot hold the line forever.
Mr. Speaker, I understand the situation very well. In my riding also, folks talk to us all the time about the high prices of gasoline and about the high cost of living. Everybody is worried about that. Also, folks do understand that the current high prices of gasoline come from the very sudden increase in crude oil prices, which is totally out of the government's control. By the way, oil is a global commodity, so global oil prices affect everybody, including the United States.
Does my colleague not think that an across-the-board reduction in gasoline taxes would benefit folks at the higher end of the income scale more than people—
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question was very respectful. I believe all 343 members of Parliament can probably point to local stories in their own ridings about the cost of everything these days.
One of my favourite things I love to do is spend time with my sons and, when their buddies come over after a day of fishing or perhaps a day of hunting, listen to their stories. They are not talking about people who are overly privileged. They are talking about their own lives today and the very fact that they cannot afford to go somewhere or cannot afford to do something. They just want an opportunity going forward. I appreciate the question, but quite frankly, it affects all of us.
Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on that question. It is a little absurd for the Liberals to come in here today and say that repealing the clean fuel standard would just benefit the rich and that the people at the bottom of the income scale would benefit the least from it.
I remember not very long ago putting $20 into my gas tank and it used to get me through a week. This is when I was working prior to getting married, when I was dating my wife. Being able to put $20 in my vehicle meant a lot, because it was able to get me a long ways. Now $20 gets us nowhere. Being able to put $20 in their gas tank feels like a luxury for a lot of people right now. For a lot of people, that is a necessity, not a luxury.
Would the member agree that people at the bottom end of the income scale actually stand to benefit the most, because when they only have $20 to put in their gas tank, it will actually get them somewhere?
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member gets it. He really understands exactly what people are facing. I would suggest that the $20 he is speaking about should be $40, because the price of food at the grocery store has been affected because there is so much tax on fuel. People need the extra $20 to maybe buy some food that would not cost the same as the food we bought perhaps three, four or five years ago. Yes, I completely agree with the member, and I appreciate the fact that he truthfully understands what the issue is.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, not so long ago, the Liberals added $2.4 billion to the deficit by temporarily suspending the excise tax. Today, the Conservatives are saying we should pile another $5 billion on the deficit with the new measures in their motion.
Could they explain why they claim they want to tackle the deficit but are suggesting measures that will actually benefit oil companies rather than ordinary people and will swell the deficit?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the hon. member. I do have to smile a little, because at the end of the day, I cannot go back in good faith to the residents of Essex, look them in the eye and say that we are actually putting more taxes on them because it is the right thing to do. I cannot do that. None of us can do that.
What we need to do is come up with common-sense solutions, such as the very one being proposed today, to ensure that future generations have the same opportunity going forward as each and every one of us to hopefully leave the world a better place than we found it. That is our job, that is why we are here and that is why we bring up these very strong suggestions.
Mr. Speaker, it has been an interesting debate thus far, so I thought I would contribute by maybe bringing a sense of reality to the situation and take more of a holistic approach to what is taking place.
We all have a responsibility to stay in tune with our constituents. There is no doubt there is concern about affordability. There is concern about the economy. People are concerned about trade and tariff issues. There are concerns with regard to social programs, whether it is dealing with issues of health care, stabilizing the immigration issue or dental care programs. There is a much larger picture that needs to be taken into consideration when we debate the motion the Conservative Party has put forward. I would also suggest there is a need for us to look at the manner in which the far right is expressing itself today. I want to address those types of issues in my comments.
I posed a question to the member for Prince Albert. There are two issues I would like to reflect on with regard to that particular question. I asked the member for Prince Albert about the national food program. This government and the Prime Minister made a very clear statement saying we are going to make a national food program permanent in our schools across this country, in every region. Over 400,000 children will directly benefit from that program.
I further commented to the member for Prince Albert saying that for generations there have been issues surrounding children not having food when they go to school. I know that first-hand because I have witnessed it in Manitoba. I can recall former leader Sharon Carstairs talking about it in the Manitoba legislature and outside the legislature. To deny that is to deny the reality of what is taking place in the communities we represent. It even goes beyond the issue of affordability. Not every child goes to school with a full tummy that would enable them to digest the education or what the teachers are saying in the classroom. Having a permanent national food program would help deal with not only the issue of affordability, but also a social issue that is real and very tangible.
When I put the question to the member for Prince Albert, his response was that, in essence, that is the difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals. The Conservatives say, no, we do not need a program like that. Other members of the Conservative Party have denied that it has even helped any children. Another member of the Conservative Party said it is a garbage program. These are the types of responses we get on an important national issue in every region of our nation. The issue of affordability is an important aspect, especially at this time. The member for Prince Albert went on to say that we do not need that. Families can take the responsibility of feeding their own family members. There is a great deal of merit in arguing that family members do provide for family members, but to make that blanket statement about all 400,000-plus children does a disservice to what is a good, sound public policy.
Let us carry it over to groceries. We have the groceries and essentials benefit. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance had a press conference announcing a program that I believe is going to be there into the future to assist middle- and low-income individuals with the affordability of groceries. I asked Conservative members if they would support that program and the response has been, in essence, no.
Let us take a look at how that program, much like the GST did in the past, supported individuals who needed the support the most. The program is very much targeted. Over 10 million Canadians are going to benefit from the implementation of that program, which is going to be taking effect at the beginning of June. Again, we have to look at the contrast. The Conservatives like the flash and the extreme statements. I would like to give an example of both on this issue.
One of my colleagues shared ChatGPT with me and I have been able to use it over the last little while. I took a look at some of the false claims the Conservatives make. I believe the motion says we pay 13% more for gas than the Americans do. I can say to the members opposite that I am not too sure where they get these numbers from, but it is an example of an extreme statement and it is what the far right likes to do. They like to say something even if it is not true.
Let me give members a tangible example. California has 39 million people. Canada has 40 million people. I did a bit of research. It was not much, but I did do some on this issue. I found that a U.S.A. gallon equals about 3.785 litres. In California, it costs $6.10 a gallon, which equates to $1.61 a litre. That is in U.S. dollars. Let us say someone wants to fill up their tank in California. They will find that, after they apply the conversion, it is going to cost $111.13 to put in 50 litres of gas.
I most often get my gas on Salter Avenue in the north end of Winnipeg at gas station 204. It is a great gas station. It consistently has some of the best prices, if not the best price in Winnipeg when it comes to gas. I believe I paid less than $1.60 over the weekend. I quickly called them. I asked, “What are you charging today for a litre of gas?” He said they cannot necessarily convey it over the telephone. I said that I believed it was $1.55 or something like that recently. It was less than that. I do not know for a fact, but members can try to phone them. It is the 204 gas company on Salter, just south of Selkirk Avenue.
Therefore, 50 litres of gas at that price would be $77.50. How does that price compare? The motion says we are paying 13% more than Americans. The Conservatives are telling my constituents that they are paying 13% more for gas than the Americans. The simple math tells me 50 litres of gas in California is going to cost my constituents $111, compared to getting it for $77.50. The point is we just cannot trust the Conservatives.
If we look at the average price of gas in the United States we would find, at least based on the example in my experience of the last few days, that it is nowhere near what the Conservatives are purporting it to be today, but that does not stop them, because a part of their strategy, the far-right strategy, is to try to get the population angry.
The government understands the important issue of affordability. Why, do members think, did we decrease the excise tax on gas? We recognize what is taking place in the Middle East, and it is having an impact that can be hard on the pocketbook of Canadians. That is why we delivered on the 10¢ tax break for gasoline.
Let me give members a couple of quotes with respect to how the Conservative Party has moved to the right, and members can guess who might have said them.
The first one is this: “There would be mass hunger and malnutrition with a tax this high.” I will let members guess who said that. It is from an address to the Conservative caucus. The next is from the same person, but in a different room, on the floor of the House of Commons: “extreme bloodshed and violence that Liberals have unleashed is what is radical.” These two quotes, one from the Conservative caucus and the other from the floor of the House of Commons, come from the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. Let us talk about extreme.
Yesterday we heard from the member for Oxford. It is amazing how the Conservatives say this stuff. He said, “seniors are now starving to death.” Seriously, do members think there are people who believe the Conservative right today, with the degree to which the Conservatives have gone so far to the right?
It makes one wonder, because the member for Oxford is not alone. There have been other extreme statements made by the Conservatives. That is no surprise if we listen to what the leader of the Conservative Party said in their caucus and on the floor of the House. We wonder why. It is more about trying to get Canadians angry.
Yesterday in the House I was talking about how members of the Conservative Party go around Canada telling Canadians that Canada is broken, and how they try to justify that by throwing all sorts of numbers at them. However, I believe that if we were to canvass a vast majority of Canadians, we would find a sense of pride, a sense of wanting to collaborate, and at the very least the recognition that Canada is, from my perspective and I would argue that of most people, the best country in the world to call home, but we would never know that when listening to the Conservatives. This comes straight from the far-right leadership of the Conservative Party today.
I look at that and compare it to the types of questions I have put forward. I have had the opportunity to ask questions. There is a substantial difference between the policy measures that come from the Conservatives and those that come from the government of the day. The Conservatives are trying to divide. They are trying their hardest to anger the population, especially the far right. Is it any wonder there has been such a rise of, in a word, hatred, to a certain degree, toward politicians in general, because of things such as misinformation, gross exaggeration and things that are just not real?
Mr. Speaker, do you really believe that there are seniors starving to death in Canada today? We understand and appreciate the issue of affordability. That is why, unlike what the Conservatives are proposing, we have adopted a holistic approach to building a stronger, healthier economy, while at the same time being there and delivering for Canadians on the issue of affordability. This is not just something that we decided in the last day, 24 hours, or in the last week or month. This has been a commitment from our Prime Minister since day one. The issue of affordability and making life easier for Canadians has been there, top of mind, for the current government, and in particular for the Prime Minister, from day one.
Just over a year ago, the first action taken by the Prime Minister reduced the price of gas substantially. It was the elimination of the carbon tax, and the government does see that as a positive initiative that made life more affordable for Canadians. We understood, as a new government with a new Prime Minister, how important it was to take that action, and it was the very first action by the Prime Minister.
There was another action within weeks of being back in session, prior to last summer. We made a substantial tax break for Canada's middle class.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, some Conservatives may try to belittle it, but 22 million Canadians benefited from that action. Mr. Speaker, you know, as I know, that this is the full truth. The member opposite should know it, because we debated the issue and forced the issue through prior to summer 2025. From it, 22 million Canadians benefited.
We have eliminated the GST for first-time homebuyers. This is a substantial break for people who are trying to purchase a home for the first time. We have extended and enhanced things such as the Canada child benefit, a program that serves millions of Canadians, upwards of around six million or so, I believe. We have reinforced the importance of things such as the Canadian dental program and pharmacare for diabetes, and some other measures, making sure that we are protecting, where we can, those social services.
There are actions the government has taken, such as what I referenced at the very beginning: the grocery and essentials benefit program. I thought that program would receive unanimous support from the House of Commons. The money is going out in June. It deals with the affordability issue in part, just as the excise tax taken off gas until Labour Day by the government does.
We have to put this in the context of what is taking place in the Middle East. There is an energy crisis. The Prime Minister, the government and, in fact, the entire Liberal caucus recognize that and the importance of the issue of affordability, and we are there to have the backs of Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, Tolstoy said, “Truth, like gold, is to be obtained not by its growth, but by washing away from it all that is not gold.” Let us wash away everything that is not gold from the member's speech and look at the truth. Well, that is right, we washed away, and there is nothing. We have sat and listened to a master class of 20 minutes of disinformation from the Liberal government.
I will be upfront here. We tease back and forth with the member for Winnipeg North all the time, and I quite enjoy jousting with him, quite good-naturedly. However, I have to say I am disappointed by some of his terms in accusing us of being far right. I will comment on a few of his claims.
The member goes on at length about the school food program for 400,000 children. However, there are 5.4 million children who are not covered by it. On the grocery rebate, when we actually include two working parents at minimum wage, they do not qualify. The government spent years claiming that the carbon tax was not inflationary. Why does the member now, after so many times saying the gas tax was not inflationary—
Mr. Speaker, my friend opposite has to stop drinking the right-wing Kool-Aid. I can assure people who are listening that everything I have said is factual and that I can support it.
The issue with the national food program, as the member said, is that it is targeted at young children and not at every child who goes to school. I will concede that, but the Conservative Party does not even recognize the value of it or of any other program that is there to support Canadians on the affordability front.
I am still waiting for Conservatives to stand up and say, “You know what? The groceries and essentials benefit program is good for Canadians. It will help in terms of the issue of affordability.” Just one Conservative should stand up. It might be a little offside with the leader of the Conservative Party, but they can stand up and recognize it as a program that is going to help their constituents on the issue of affordability. It is not much to ask for. Hopefully there is one Conservative who will recognize a good program when it hits them in face.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, my colleague called the Conservatives right-wing.
Judging from their current policies, the Liberals themselves seem to be drifting further and further right. Eliminating the excise tax primarily benefits the rich. It also benefits oil companies. We know that their supply costs are not going up, because they get their oil from Canada and the U.S., yet they are basing their prices on the global price of a barrel of oil anyway. Prices dropped slightly when the excise tax was suspended, but they have gone back up.
How do we know the oil companies did not just take advantage of this measure to increase their credit margins?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, like other G7 countries, in fact allied countries that the Government of Canada works with, we monitor the price of oil. It is important to recognize that it is a tangible, deliverable tax break that is being given from April 1, I believe, to Labour Day weekend because of the crisis in the Middle East. It is a responsible public policy that is there to provide support on the issue of affordability. It has already made a difference.
If the member wants to get a better sense of it, he can talk to constituents who have to pay for gas. It is not just rich people who benefit from this. If he goes to the lineups and talks to the consumer, he will hear that consumers are benefiting today because of this policy.
I believe that the Bloc should be onside and support the 10¢ excise tax relief being provided to all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate some of the claims of facts. I can assure the member that when I was in my riding, gas was more like $1.83 and rising. It was fluctuating, but rising.
Over this last two-week period back in our ridings, a number of seniors came up to me and said, “I can't keep doing this. I thought I did everything right; I worked hard, raised my family and gave to my community. Now I can't afford to live. Gas prices are making me choose between whether I go to an appointment or put food in my fridge.”
Did the member have any experiences like that in his riding?
Mr. Speaker, I have had a great deal of sympathy for and have worked with seniors virtually since being elected back in 1988 for the first time in the Manitoba legislature. In fact, during the by-election back in 2010, I remember going to the German-Canadian Congress, where there were seniors telling me that they had to make a difficult decision in terms of medication versus food. It is a challenge of all governments.
As a government, we have seen substantial supports for seniors, whether it is a record percentage of increases to the GIS, the ongoing inflation matches for things like OAS, supporting the new horizons for seniors program to the degree that we have, or one-time payments during times like the pandemic. There are all sorts of ways we continue to support our seniors, not to mention the 10% increase for seniors 75 and above, those who rely more and more as they get older on medicine and so forth.
Mr. Speaker, talking about seniors, that is exactly what I would like to ask my colleague about, because we do have in Canada the program of old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. Together we are talking about something like $85 billion.
Does my colleague think that the new, right Conservatives would probably put an axe to those programs?
Mr. Speaker, I was here when the current leader of the Conservative Party worked with Stephen Harper. They raised OAS eligibility from age 65 to 67, and they did absolutely nothing on the CPP file for over a decade. It took Liberal administrations to not only reverse the 65 to 67 but also get an increase to CPP.
We have also had ongoing support in terms of increases to the GIS and the OAS for our seniors.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary kept repeating throughout his speech that the Conservatives are members of a far right party. I think we need to be very careful and cautious with our words. By repeating this over and over again, we end up diminishing the weight of those words.
Even though I do not share the values of Conservative members, I believe that the Conservative Party is clearly not a far right party, and one should never say that in the House. I believe there is a world of difference between the policies it advocates and what is being done in the United States under the current presidency, for example.
Furthermore, when we look at economic policies, we see that the Liberal government has essentially adopted all the Conservatives' ideas: tax cuts, unconditional support for oil development, and even the reduction in gas taxes being advocated today. The Liberals did this a month and a half ago.
Is the parliamentary secretary saying, then, that the Liberals themselves are members of a far right party?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that under this Prime Minister, we have seen a government that has recognized the value of building a strong Canada for all Canadians, to make it stronger and healthier. That is what those policies, as they have unfolded, have directed.
We understand the importance of the economy, the environment and indigenous people, bringing them all together, knowing full well that we can work in collaboration and have a good environment, a good economy and better relations with indigenous people as we grow through things such as the major projects and export opportunities. It is an aggressive agenda that this Prime Minister and every Liberal member of Parliament has, to be there for Canadians.
Committees of the House
Mr. Speaker, this is very brief. There have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:
That Motion No. 6 to concur in the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development (extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 97.1, to consider Bill C-241, An Act to establish a national strategy respecting flood and drought forecasting) be deemed adopted on division.
Business of Supply
Opposition Motion—Cancellation of Federal Taxes on Gas and Diesel and the Clean Fuel Standard
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise on behalf of the constituents of Portage—Lisgar. I rise today in support of our Conservative opposition day motion, which calls on the government to give immediate relief by ending all federal taxes on gas and diesel for the rest of the year, including the GST.
The motion is very straightforward. For the millions who are being squeezed at the pump, at the grocery store, on the farm or simply when buying the essentials of everyday life, it is badly needed. Let us start with the fact that Canada cannot control everything happening around the world. We cannot control instability in the Middle East or just snap our fingers and reopen the Strait of Hormuz, but that does not mean we are powerless. A nation is judged not by whether it can prevent every storm abroad but by how wisely it prepares for and adapts to the storms that it cannot prevent. As the great Stoic philosopher Epictetus stated, “Make the best use of what is in your power, and take the rest as it happens.”
The government can and should do more to help. It can stop taxing people every time they fill up their vehicles, and it can stop making a bad situation worse. Families were already in a cost of living crisis before this latest spike at the pump. Groceries were already too expensive. Rent and mortgages were already too high. Utility bills were already eating up more and more of the family budget. Food banks had countless people walking through their doors for the first time. This is something that is happening in every corner of our country, and now the price at the pump is pouring fuel on that fire.
What did the Minister of Finance have to say about it? He said, “We have already acted.” Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, but I am surprised he did not tell my constituents to go and eat cake while he was at it. I can assure him that the family filling up their minivan does not think that the federal government has acted enough on this issue, and it will come as news to the farmer who needs diesel to seed, to spray, to harvest and to haul everything. Canadians do not fill their tanks with Liberal excuses, but boy, I bet they wish they could.
The government says it has acted already, but Canadians are still paying more. Gas prices are 13% higher in Canada than in the United States. That is about 22¢ more per litre on average. Many folks from my region, from the southern part of my riding, regularly head across the border to save those dollars and fill up their tanks, but they wish they did not have to. Life is simply so expensive that it is worth committing the extra time to travel internationally to fuel up.
Gas now costs 50¢ more per litre than it did when the global oil prices were at the exact same levels in 2014. That is the point. It is not just global oil markets. It is not just events happening half a world away. It is about deliberate choices made right here at home by a government that kept adding costs and kept ignoring the consequences. The government has layered taxes, regulations, costs and waste upon everything else, and then, when people ask for relief, the Liberals just shrug it off and say they have already done their part.
I represent a whole bunch of good, honest, hard-working folks who call rural Manitoba home. In rural Manitoba, driving is not optional. There is no subway from Winkler to Morden. There is no LRT from Carman to Portage. There is no magic electric bus that takes a farmer to the parts counter when he needs something, a nurse to a night shift or a senior living on an acreage to the nearest grocery store. For rural Canadians, the vehicle is not a luxury. It is simply how life works. When gas goes up, rural people do not have the option of just driving a little less. They have to eat the cost. They have to absorb it, and they have to cut somewhere else. That is why our Conservative team will continue to push on this issue.
I think about the seniors who are on fixed incomes who have worked hard their entire lives. They have paid their taxes. They have raised their families. They have built our communities. They did what was asked of them and tried to follow the promise of Canada. I had the chance to speak with so many of them over the last couple of weeks back home in the riding, and a staggering number told me just how hard things are right now, that they are struggling to get by, that they cannot absorb yet another increase in the cost of living. They are looking at the price of meats. They are looking at the price of fruits and vegetables. They are making choices that no senior should have to make in our advanced first world country, in our beautiful nation of Canada.
Do they fill the tank, or do they fill the fridge? Do they go to that appointment, or do they save the money on gas? Do they buy the healthier food, or do they just buy what is cheapest? Do they risk the perceived pain to their pride in asking their family for help if they need it, or do they visit a food bank for the first time? That is not dignity. That is not the Canadian promise. It certainly matters for parents. Every parent knows the feeling. The kids are growing, eating everything in sight, and the clothes they were hoping they could wear one or two more times simply do not fit anymore. Now the grocery bill looks like a car payment, the car payment looks like a mortgage, the mortgage looks like something from another planet, and we are faced with higher and higher fuel costs.
These costs are baked into every product on every shelf. This is the part that the government does not seem to understand. Fuel is not just something that people buy at a gas station. Fuel is inside the price of absolutely everything we buy. It moves the seed, the fertilizer, the crop, the cattle, the potatoes, the groceries and the parts. It moves our economy. When diesel goes up, the price of food goes up. This is partly why we have the highest food inflation in the G7. When transportation goes up, the price of everything goes up.
When the government taxes fuel, it is not just taxing the person standing and looking at the pump, wondering when it will ever stop. It is taxing the entirety of the supply chain, and our farmers are hit especially hard. Farmers do not have the option of just parking the tractor because the price of diesel is too high. The crop has to go in, crop protection products have to be applied, and the harvest must take place. The grain then has to move, and the bills just keep coming, and this was when fertilizer prices were already sky high. Farmers have faced huge increases in input costs.
Fuel, equipment, repairs, parts, interest rates, transportation and taxes are all piled on, to over $160 billion in debt, with the government continuously piling on more red tape. Every extra cost eventually shows up somewhere else. Now, in my hometown of Portage, we have major food processors like Simplot and McCain. They are part of a food supply chain that reaches far beyond Manitoba. When fuel and diesel costs rise, their costs rise too. Those costs do not just simply vanish into thin air; they move down the line, and the consumer pays. That is why tax relief at the pump is not some narrow little measure. It is a broad measure of affordability relief for the entire economy.
Let us talk about the hypocrisy of the carbon tax, but before I do, I would like to indicate I am splitting my time with the member for Battle River—Crowfoot.
Members might recall that for years, Liberals told Canadians that the carbon tax had made them better off. They said the rebate covered it and more. They said anyone who disagreed was simply spreading misinformation. Then, when they finally removed part of their carbon tax, they bragged that it was saving families money. Well, which one is it? If removing the carbon tax saves families money right now, then it was costing families money before. The Liberals would never admit that, but both things cannot be true at the same time.
For years, Conservatives said the carbon tax was making life more expensive. For years, this Liberal government denied it. Now the Liberals want credit for partially admitting what everybody else already knew intuitively. Canadians are not asking for a miracle; they are asking for relief. This House can give it to them today. If the government simply adopts our idea, it will immediately put money back into people's pockets.
Every MP in this place has a choice. They can defend keeping all of these taxes on, or they can stand with people, who are the ones paying the bill. Nobody is saying that this motion is going to solve every challenge in the country or our world. It would not, but it would lower costs and give people some breathing room that they so badly need. It tells Canadians that their government is not completely deaf to what is happening in their lives.
Let us stop pretending that everything is outside of our control. There are things in our control that we can do to make a difference in the lives of the citizens we are here to represent: suspend the federal taxes on gas and diesel for the rest of the year, and give Canadians real relief, not another lecture. That is what this motion says. It would lower costs, it respects taxpayers, and it puts families first. That is why I am proud to support it.
Mr. Speaker, I think I can safely say that, no, we will not vote for the Conservative motion. In fact, the motion would make things far worse.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Carlos Leitão: Yes, it would. Yes, it would. Let me just say this, Mr. Speaker, if I may. Our current suspension of the federal excise tax for four months, at 10¢ a litre, will cost $2.4 billion.
How much would the Conservative motion cost? How would they fund it?
Mr. Speaker, only a Liberal could stand up and say that a tax cut providing relief on gas and fuel that is so important to not only families but the entirety of our economy is going to be a problem. Perhaps the government has a spending problem that it refuses to address. The government is so out of control with its bloated bureaucracy, paying for consultants, paying for everything that families are meant to provide, it forgets who we are sent here to represent. I will always stand up for lower taxes of any type for my riding and for Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has stated that lowering taxes, such as the excise tax, primarily benefits the wealthiest and much less so the poorest. Furthermore, we know that even if taxes are lowered, oil companies always want to make more profits. What is likely to happen is that they will charge citizens just as much and line their own pockets with more money.
What does my colleague think about this?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, it seems as though Conservatives are the only ones who will ever stand up for lower prices and more affordability for the people we are here to represent. We should proudly do that. There are things that are outside our control. We can acknowledge them, we can accept them, but we do not need to focus entirely on them. When the problem is homegrown in this nation and the cost of living crisis is due to our own policies, we should seek to address them. This is one small measure that would do just that. It would have a tangible impact on the people we are sent here to represent, and we should vote for this motion today.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could comment briefly on what the Liberal member of Parliament said about what a big problem giving tax relief to Canadians is going to be and what the cost is. He never once mentioned the mess he has put Canada and Canadian families in. On the taxes, we can look at the cost of the grocery benefit the government is putting out and why that has come to be. It has come to be because of all the inflation and the cost of fuel to get things shipped around the country.
Mr. Speaker, it really is astounding. I am not sure if the Liberals do not go to grocery stores, do not go to gas stations or do not talk to people, or all of the above. The people I represent always tell me that the cost of living is the number one issue of concern to them. They tell me that gas prices are blowing their minds. As they are watching the prices go up, they are deciding that they cannot fill up the whole tank or that they will have to skip the soccer game that afternoon.
It is an absurd reality when the government forgets something is so integral as the taxes it is imposing on people, and not only the impacts those taxes have on the individual buying the fuel, but also the ripple effects across the entirety of the economy. We wonder why we have the fastest-growing inflation of food prices in the G7. This is a huge part of it. The inflationary spending the government has undertaken over the past 11 years, combined with its irrational refusal to take common-sense decisions that are in our control, like the one we are proposing as Conservatives today, is why the government needs to go.
Mr. Speaker, we know the number of visits from Manitoba to the United States has actually decreased. The member made reference to the people in his constituency who are travelling to the United States in order to gas up. A quick search finds that the price of gas in Minnesota is about $1.55 a litre. That is probably within two cents or three cents of what I paid over the weekend.
Does the member really believe there is a flood of people going from his constituency and travelling to Minneapolis in order to get gas?
Mr. Speaker, I would encourage my friend to consult a map. No, they are not driving 10 hours to Minneapolis to get gasoline. They are driving right across to Walhalla or some other closer place, where they are seeing a tangible difference between what their credit card says they pay for gasoline north of the border and what they pay south of it. People are not stupid. The member should not treat them like they are. They know what they are doing. I wish they did not have to drive to America to get more affordable gas. We can fix that today.
Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent for the Clerk to provide the deputy House leader with an atlas so he can consult the map.
[Translation]
Today—
[English]
Mr. Speaker, he is the parliamentary secretary, not the deputy House leader. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition can get the—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, because he is so bad with geography, he just received a demotion.
[Translation]
With the wars in the Middle East and Ukraine, with the price of oil at $100 a barrel and the price at the pump at $1.38, and I am not talking about today; I am talking about 2014. During the Harper years, global oil prices were higher than they are today, and there were wars in the Middle East and Ukraine, but the price at the pump was 40¢ a litre lower than it is today.
There is no doubt that the price Canadians pay at the pump is indeed influenced by global conditions. However, that does not explain the current situation, because the conditions were exactly the same in 2014. Oil prices were actually higher than they are today and the price at the pump was 40¢ a litre lower than it is today. That is about 25% less. There must be other factors at play. These are not global factors. They are Liberal factors.
What Liberal factors are affecting the price of gas?
First of all, taxes are going up faster. There is a new carbon tax, renamed the clean fuel standard, which already adds another seven cents a litre and applies more broadly than the previous Liberal carbon tax. There are no exemptions for farmers, fishers or other food producers.
Second, the GST rises every time the price of oil goes up, because it is a percentage-based tax.
Lastly, we have a weak dollar. The Liberal Prime Minister holds himself up as a brilliant economist, but ever since he took office, the dollar has been extremely weak, even as the value of the main resources we have here has gone up. Our dollar is worth 72¢ to 73¢ U.S. When our dollar is weak, we pay more for the goods we buy on the world market. When our dollar is weaker than the U.S. dollar, we pay more for products priced in U.S. dollars.
How did we get here?
First, the taxes that the government charges on gas raise the price people pay at the pump. Anti-development laws are preventing us from developing our resources, leading us to have the second-longest waiting period for mining approvals, for example. These laws are reducing the number of dollars that foreigners have to spend to be able to buy our goods. This makes our dollar weak, which in turn makes our purchasing power very weak. At the pump and at the grocery store, Canadians are paying for the Liberal government's “weak dollar” policies, which have not changed since this Prime Minister has been in power. He is following the same policies as Justin Trudeau, the same policies he advised on five years ago, the same policies that he promoted as a member of an anti-oil banking alliance. Canadians are paying the price with a higher cost of living that just keeps going up month after month.
The Conservatives are proposing concrete measures to make life more affordable. We propose eliminating all fuel taxes for the whole year, which will save Canadians 25¢ per litre, $20 per fill and $1,200 by the end of the year. We are calling on the Liberal government to scrap its taxes and leave more money in Canadians' pockets.
How are we going to pay for it? We will cut red tape, which has ballooned by 7% a year. We will cut back on consultants, because the Liberals spend $20 billion in that area—twice what was spent in Stephen Harper's final years. We will cut back on corporate welfare and the big cheques the Liberals hand out to large corporations that they have ties with and that have good lobbyists. We are going to cut foreign aid, because if we cannot pay the bills here in Canada, we do not have money to send overseas. We are going to cut back on waste and fraud, the fraudulent money we give to fake refugees. Just today, the Parliamentary Budget Officer revealed that the government is pouring billions of dollars into rejected refugees, not actual refugees. These are five examples of things we can eliminate to reduce the cost of living at the pump without increasing the Liberal deficit.
Canadians are paying too much because we have a government that spends too much. An affordable government will give us an affordable life. That is what a positive solution to fulfill Canada's promise looks like: Working hard leads to a good life, an affordable life where people can provide for their children and have the means to enrich their life.
[English]
Let me just recap the global situation. There are wars in the Middle East and Ukraine, we have an oil price around $100 a barrel and the price at the pump is $1.38. I am not talking about now. I am talking about 2014. Former prime minister Stephen Harper was in power and wars were raging in the Middle East, in both Syria and Iraq. The Russians had just invaded Crimea and the global oil price was $100 a barrel, $10 higher than it is today, and yet the price of gas at the pump was 40¢ a litre cheaper than it is today.
What explains the difference? Let us go further. In the United States right now, south of the border, Americans are paying, in Canadian dollars and in litres, 17¢ a litre less than Canadians. They have the same global oil price and the same global factors like the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, and yet it is 17¢ a litre cheaper south of the border. Why? Sure, there are global effects that have influenced prices lately, but the bigger and longer-term costs are the Liberal government effects.
One, it continues to impose a newly renamed and rebranded carbon tax, this time seven cents a litre rising to 17¢, but a broader tax that, unlike the earlier one, does not exempt farmers, fishers or other food producers. Two, the GST rises on the cost of a litre of gas as that cost goes up because it is a percentage-based tax. Three, we have an extremely weak dollar, and this is very unusual. Normally, when the world has high oil prices, Canada has a strong dollar because we have so much oil to sell on the world market. However, because the share of our economy made up of our oil exports is down, the link between oil prices and Canadian dollars is reduced, which removes the protection that consumers had from global shocks 10 years ago. Now, with a weak dollar and everything priced in U.S. dollars, globally priced commodities like oil and gas become far more expensive in Canadian dollars. A weak dollar means weakened purchasing power. Almost every foodstuff has either a North American or a global price. When we have a weak Canadian dollar, the ability of Canadian consumers to buy those goods is also weakened. A weak dollar means higher prices for Canadians.
It is amazing that the Liberal Prime Minister, who has been wrong on every single economic issue of the last decade, has now delivered us a weak monetary base in this country. By printing cash and continuing to block resources, he has given us a weak dollar, which is incredible, because that was supposed to be his incredible forte. However, if we look back, he has been wrong on every single economic issue of the last decade: wrong on the carbon tax, wrong to oppose oil and gas, wrong to oppose the pipeline to the Pacific and wrong to support money printing during inflation. He is wrong again today by continuing to impose taxes on our gas.
Conservatives have a motion with a very simple and obvious solution, which is to take all taxes off all gas for all of the year to save consumers 25¢ a litre, 20 bucks a fill-up, which is $1,200 by Christmas. Let us lower the cost at the pump to re-energize our economy, move the parts that make up our economy more quickly, create jobs, relieve families and unleash the power of our economy to restore the promise to our people.
Mr. Speaker, I am not even going to go to the money-printing side because that could take a few minutes. That is a whole different discussion. For example, I would never say I would fire the governor of the central bank. As a country, we do not say those things.
The very specific question I have is this. In 2014, yes, the crude oil price started the year at $100 a barrel, but it finished at $55 a barrel. There was that sharp decline in oil prices throughout the year that explains the lower gasoline prices. Is the Leader of the Opposition aware of that?
Mr. Speaker, I am aware that the price dropped, but the price at the pump that I quoted was aligned with a $100-a-barrel price at the time. Apparently, the member was not aware of the fact that gas prices do not pre-emptively drop before oil prices drop. I think they need to get another economist over there to explain the basics to this guy. Obviously, when oil prices were 100 bucks a barrel under Stephen Harper, at that very moment gas prices were $1.38. Today, oil prices are, I think, $92 WTI, which somebody can look up, and gas prices are up around $1.80.
The reality is there is obviously something other than the global price that is driving the cost at the pumps. It is Liberal taxes and the weak Liberal dollar. The fact that the member is as ill-advised as his leader, who was an incompetent bank governor in England and caused inflation and housing crises there, demonstrates that they still have not figured out that money printing causes inflation. They will never learn.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative leader is proposing to lower fuel taxes, but the Liberals already did that more than a month ago by reducing the excise tax by 10¢. We saw that the price at the pump dropped temporarily, but then refinery margins rose by more than 10¢, filling the gap and leaving us with an unchanged price at the pump and a deficit that has grown by $2.4 billion.
What the Conservative leader is proposing today is to lower taxes even further. We can expect the same behaviour from the oil companies, which will increase their profit margins, and we will end up with an even larger deficit. This Prime Minister is running deficits twice as big as Justin Trudeau's.
Why would we implement measures that increase the deficit so much?
Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right: This Liberal Prime Minister has doubled Justin Trudeau's deficit. It is twice as high now. No one thought it possible that anyone could spend more irresponsibly than Justin Trudeau, but this Prime Minister has managed to do just that. He has been wrong about every economic problem for the past decade.
I have already listed five or six different government expenditures that we can eliminate to reduce the cost of government and bring prices down by cutting taxes.
Apart from during COVID‑19, this government is spending more on the economy than any government since 1996. This is the biggest, largest government since 1996. We can cut government costs to lower the cost of living for Canadians.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader for providing a very common-sense approach to deal with the cost of living crisis.
The Liberals keep saying that one of the reasons they cannot axe this tax is that it will disproportionately benefit the rich, and that the people who have a low income will not benefit nearly as much from axing the taxes we are talking about in this motion today.
I am wondering if the leader could explain to the Liberal Party how axing these taxes would actually benefit low-income earners and do well for them with respect to the cost of living.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister is really rich when he says he cares about making the rich pay their fair share, but stashes his cash in an offshore tax haven. He took his millions of dollars from Brookfield and put them in a Caribbean tax haven in a fake office above a bicycle shop so that he could avoid paying the same taxes he charges Canadians. It is incredible, when we think about how someone who is literally invested in what Toronto Star called the biggest tax-dodger in Canada, Brookfield, then turns around and lectures single moms about paying their taxes when they fill up at the pump.
Energy is a much bigger part of the household budget for low-income people than it is for high-income people. That is why these Liberal taxes at the pump hurt the poorest people the most. Liberals turning up their nose at working-class Canadians and telling them to pay more and more while the Prime Minister dodges paying his fair share is the height of Liberal hypocrisy.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Kingston and the Islands.
I am very pleased to rise today to call attention to our government's efforts to make life more affordable. Naturally, Canadians are living in a complex, unpredictable world. Unfortunately, in many ways, this world is also more expensive.
In response, the government is staying focused on what it can control: building a strong Canadian economy, diversifying our foreign trade partners, ensuring responsible fiscal management and, of course, supporting Canadians. I am pleased that the opposition motion underscores that the government has taken action because, yes, we have taken action to help Canadians. We are working tirelessly to make life more affordable for them.
Here is one very practical example. As we all know, ship traffic in the Strait of Hormuz has practically been at a standstill for several weeks. This has caused oil prices to spike, gas prices to soar and the price of other essential goods to increase not only here in Canada, but everywhere. Was it our government that started the war in Iran? Obviously, the answer is “no”. Did we take action to lower costs for Canadians? The answer is “yes”.
Global conflicts and persistent supply disruptions in the Middle East are not things the government can control. What we can do, and what we are doing, is helping Canadians who are impacted by these conflicts. Since April 20, just over a month ago, the federal excise tax on gas has been suspended, and it will remain suspended until September 7. The suspension of this tax is expected to save Canadians up to an estimated $5.75 when filling up a 50-litre tank. It provides real savings for families, who will hopefully be able to travel across Canada this summer. It also lowers costs for truckers and businesses. It is expected that this measure will provide Canadians with over $2.4 billion in relief in 2026-27. By lowering the cost of gas and diesel at the pump, the government is taking meaningful action to support Canadians through these challenging times. At a cost of a little over $2 billion, we are doing it without putting the public purse at risk.
I can give yet another example. Even before the conflict in the Strait of Hormuz, the historic rise in tariffs plunged the economies, businesses and workers of several countries into uncertainty. Canada was no exception. Did Canada cause the global trade disruptions that sent the cost of essential goods skyrocketing? Of course not. Did we take action? The answer is yes.
Earlier this year, to help Canadian families make ends meet, we launched the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit. This benefit is based on the GST credit, as we all know, and provides increased support to more than 12 million low- and modest-income Canadians. Next Friday, June 5, these 12 million Canadians will receive a one-time supplement payment equal to 50% of this year's annual GST credit. This measure alone will provide more than $3 billion in assistance to individuals and families in need.
That is not all. Starting this July, low- and modest-income Canadians will receive higher quarterly payments. The benefit will be increased by 25% for five years, providing over $8 billion in additional support. In total, a family of four could receive up to almost $2,000 this year and approximately $1,400 per year over the next four years.
That is real and meaningful support that will help cover the cost of groceries, bills and everyday expenses.
However, that is not all. We also cut taxes for 22 million Canadians by reducing the lowest marginal personal income tax rate from 15% to 14%. This year, in 2026, that means savings of $420 per person or over $800 for a two-income family.
We eliminated the GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes at or under $1 million, which is a big deal in my riding of University—Rosedale, and we lowered the GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes between $1 million and $1.5 million. We made the national school food program permanent to give 400,000 children access to healthy meals and to help their parents save $800 a year in groceries.
We have also taken concrete steps to make the banking system fairer and, above all, more affordable for Canadians. Since March, consumers can no longer be charged more than $10 in fees when there are non-sufficient funds in their personal account to cover a payment. Financial institutions can no longer charge more than one NSF fee in a period of two business days for the same account. Furthermore, and this is important, no NSF fees may be charged when the account shortfall is under $10.
We will be starting automatic federal benefits this year that will reach up to 5.5 million low-income Canadians by the 2028 tax year. This will ensure that millions of low-income individuals across Canada can receive the assistance they are entitled to. In addition, in the spring economic update, we announced our intention to reduce the Canada pension plan base contribution rate from nearly 10% to 9.5% effective January 1 of next year.
Our government is focusing on what we can control, such as building a stronger Canadian economy and helping Canadians who are struggling every day because of the cost of living. We will continue to shift from reliance to resilience, and we are doing all of this while maintaining a strong fiscal position. According to the spring economic update, the projected deficits are lower than anticipated in the 2025 budget.
Is Canada responsible for the upheaval in the global economy? No. Is the government taking action to mitigate the consequences? Yes.
We are building Canada strong for all, and I urge the members of the House to support our efforts.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned that the government was focusing on what it can control. The government controls all of the gas taxes, such as the industrial carbon tax and the GST on both diesel and regular gas.
If it is only focusing on what it can control, why does it not reduce all of the taxes, as we have suggested in this motion?
Mr. Speaker, absolutely, we need to focus on what we can control. What we need to do is reduce taxes in ways that are responsible, and we need to also continue to invest in the critical social programs that matter to all Canadians. They certainly matter to my constituents and, I am sure, to the constituents of the members opposite.
Whether they are the Canadian dental care plan, which is very important to the people in my riding who were not able to access dental services until this plan came into place, or the Canada child benefit, which benefits families with children who need it the most, these are the kinds of benefits we can control, and we need to continue to protect them for Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to commend my colleague on her speech, which she gave entirely in impeccable French. It is always very moving to hear that.
I will come back to the Liberal government's announcement to suspend the excise tax until September. That meant a savings of 10¢, but it was quickly offset by an increase of more than 10¢ in refinery margins. The way I see it, refineries saw an opportunity to fill a gap created by the government. This increase in refinery margins cancels out the price reduction, while still leaving us with a deficit.
I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.
Mr. Speaker, it is true that there are many things that we cannot control. That is why it is also very responsible to take temporary measures to deal with the crisis that we are facing right now, without putting ourselves in a long‑term position that we cannot get out of.
Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague on her excellent speech. I am very pleased that there is one more member of our caucus who cares deeply about our Canadian francophonie. I am very pleased to be able to serve with her.
During her recent election campaign, what did she hear from her constituents about the importance of the measures that we are putting in place to help people cope with the rising cost of living?
She put it very well when she said that we are focusing on what we can control, and that includes putting measures in place to help people.
I would like to hear what her constituents told her about this.
Mr. Speaker, it is true that during the by‑election, I spoke with many people in my riding who are deeply affected by the affordability crisis that we are facing here in Canada right now.
I would say that people are generally very happy to have a responsible government that is trying to implement measures that meet their needs without making drastic policy changes at a time of real uncertainty. For people in my riding, this means having access to stable public services and having a government that responds to immediate needs without rolling out permanent policies. I believe that people see this as a very responsible approach.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, in the Canada Gazette, it was published that the people who would be most disproportionately impacted by the clean fuel regulations are single moms and seniors living on a fixed income. I am wondering if the government is even publishing that these are the people who would be most impacted. Would the member not support removing this tax to make life more affordable for these folks?
Mr. Speaker, in my riding, I am hearing from single moms and seniors about the importance of maintaining the Canada child benefit and the Canadian dental care plan, which have been transformative for affordability for those two groups.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for University—Rosedale for sharing her time with me today to debate the opposition motion that we have before us.
I think I will focus my 10 minutes primarily on the exchange that took place earlier between the member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley and the Leader of the Opposition. They had a really interesting exchange. The member had asked the Leader of the Opposition to talk about all that this would do for low-income Canadians and how it would benefit them more than anybody else. I could not quite wrap my head around where that question was even coming from, because the reality of the situation is that we know that people who are wealthier consume a lot more energy. I mean, they have bigger homes and drive bigger vehicles, and they have other recreational vehicles and toys that require fuel.
This idea that the impact is going to be more substantial on low-income Canadians than on Canadians who are much more well off is just absolutely ludicrous to me. It does not make any sense, but it does fit perfectly into the narrative that Conservatives always try to paint.
This takes me back to the Ronald Reagan Republicans and the Margaret Thatchers of the eighties and their trickle-down economics, where we were told not to worry, that if we give relief to the wealthy, that money will slowly trickle down to the folks who really need it. That is a Conservative myth that has never been proven. There is not a single data point that has actually proven that to be true. It is just what Conservatives like to get up here to say day after day.
When I am sitting here, listening to the member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley and the Leader of the Opposition talk about how removing more tax off of fuel is somehow going to benefit the less fortunate in our society more than the ultrawealthy, I just think it is absolutely crazy to even make that claim.
If we want to talk about what actually helps people who really need help, I will tell the House about some of the initiatives that the government has brought in. I ask the folks watching this from the gallery, or folks at home who might be tuning in to this, to consider that members of the Conservative Party of Canada have voted against every single one of these initiatives. When we introduced the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, Conservatives voted against it. This is money that is specifically targeted to go to the low-income Canadians who the member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley was talking about.
Conservatives voted against cutting taxes for 22 million Canadians. These are initiatives that affected the lowest-income earners the most by removing the biggest amount of tax implication from them rather than anybody else. It is not appealing to the Conservatives because it does not fit the narrative that they can sell back to the base, those who they are really trying to impress, the ultrawealthy.
By the way, that brings up something else. I want to applaud the Bloc for actually discussing this today. The Bloc raised the point on a couple of occasions that the Conservatives are talking about high oil and gas prices, but we have not heard them, in one breath, in one sentence or even in three words, talk about the fact that it is the oil and gas industry that is making massive record profits right now.
I have not seen the Conservatives bringing in motions to talk about what we should do about that or how taxes should be impacting those particular companies. Of course not. They are never going to do that. That is their base. That is who they are always really trying to impress and please, unlike what was in the fake conversation I heard earlier between the member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley and the Leader of the Opposition about suddenly having an interest in helping the less fortunate in our communities.
We also brought in a national school food program, and the Conservatives vilified it. They not only voted against it, but also got up in the House to talk about how it is a fake program that has not helped anybody. The member for York—Durham goes on his “Restore the North” tour, asking why we need to give food to children and saying what we really needed to do, all while making up these fake reasons why it was required, while of course neglecting the fact that we were the last of the G7 countries to bring in a national school food program. National food programs have been going on for decades and decades.
Of course, the Conservatives will take every opportunity to take every single issue and politicize it. They cannot even resist the temptation of politicizing putting food into children's bellies in elementary school. They politicize all of it.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Hon. Mark Gerretsen: No, I am not politicizing it.
Mr. Speaker, I am listening to these guys heckle right now, and I will respond to that heckle.
I stood up here for days, for years, asking why we were the last of the G7 countries to do this and why we had not done it yet. I worked internally in my caucus to push the minister of finance at the time, and I presented petition after petition from my community on this issue, so no, I am not going to jump onto an issue on a case-by-case basis for three minutes so that I can politicize it like the Conservatives do. That would be just like what I have to listen to in the House when they suddenly become the champions of those with low incomes in our society.
We introduced automatic federal benefits in our budget, something the Conservatives voted against. Now low-income Canadians whose tax returns are very simple can benefit from it being an automatic process so they immediately get the tax refund. They do not need an accountant or to go to a third-party company and pay for it. That is helping low-income Canadians. Conservatives are not helping when they are getting up and saying that, if we reduce the gas tax even more than we have already, it would help low-income Canadians more than the wealthy Canadians, who obviously consume way more fuel than low-income Canadians.
We expanded and entrenched the Canada child benefit. If members want one clear example of a difference in policy between the Liberals and Conservatives, they need look no further than the Canada child benefit. All they have to do is compare two very easy policies, one presented by the Conservatives under Stephen Harper and one presented by the Liberals.
The goal was ultimately the same, which was to give money to help support children. The key difference between the two is that Stephen Harper's universal child care benefit gave a cheque for every single child. If a person had three kids, they got three times the individual child amount. It did not matter whether they were making $20,000 a year or $2 million a year. Everybody got the exact same cheque.
When we came along we said that it might make more sense to not give cheques to millionaires, but instead take that money and give more to low-income Canadians, who would use the money right away and inject it right back into our economy. If Canadians want just one example of a fundamental difference in the philosophy behind the policies of the Liberals and the Conservatives, all they need to do is look at the two different child care benefits that were introduced under the two different governments. That tells them everything they need to know about the differences between the Liberals and Conservatives.
Of course, there is the $10-a-day child care benefit that we have been working with the provinces on. There is also the Canada dental plan that the member for Regina—Lewvan did not vote in favour of.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Hon. Mark Gerretsen: Mr. Speaker, the member is saying that, no, he did not vote in favour of it.
I am sure I could get the Minister of Health to tell me how many recipients there have been in his riding. The member is saying that they do not need it. Why would they not need it? We are one of the wealthiest countries in the world, and the member for Regina—Lewvan does not want to provide dental care to some of the most vulnerable people in our communities. This is everything anyone needs to understand the difference between the two parties. I want to thank him for speaking up there.
The Canada disability benefit is another one, as well as the $500 Canada housing benefit top-up for low-income renters.
These are all initiatives that the government has brought forward to make the lives of the most vulnerable Canadians better. Every single one of these, the Conservatives voted against.
Mr. Speaker, the member has been sitting here since 2015. He stands up in his speech touting the Right Hon. Justin Trudeau's record as if it were an accomplishment. Here is where we are today. We have the highest housing prices in the history of our country, Canada is the worst country in the G7 for food affordability and gas prices are astronomically high, but he has the audacity to stand there and talk about the accomplishments of his party over the last 11 years.
Why will he not stand up, show some leadership and vote for our common-sense motion to take all gas taxes off for all Canadians for the entire year to give some real relief to Canadians, Canadian businesses and Canadian families?
Mr. Speaker, it would be a lot easier for me to take that question seriously if the member did not belong to a political party that, as I demonstrated in the example I just gave, handed checks to millionaires. Now I am supposed to suddenly expect its members to care about the affordability challenges many Canadians have.
I am very proud of the work the government has done. Could we do things differently? Could we do things better? Is there always an opportunity to improve? Absolutely, there always is. I will always do that, but will I get up in the House and vote for this motion, which would benefit the ultrawealthy the most, the people who consume the most amount of fuel? No, I will not.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the member opposite and I found his speech and his arguments fascinating. Among other things, he criticized the fact that the Conservative proposal would essentially favour the wealthy at the expense of the less fortunate, while increasing the deficit. In this context, I was wondering about something, because it seems to me that the same argument could be made about suspending the excise tax on gas.
Why did his government put that in place? Does he agree with his government's decision? Ultimately, suspending the excise tax on gas is the same principle as suspending the GST. It is calculated the same way, and it benefits the same people.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I did not say what he said. I did not say that this would benefit only the ultrawealthy. What I was doing, and I said it many times, was talking about the exchange between the member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley and the Leader of the Opposition, who claimed that this would be more of a benefit for low-income Canadians. My argument is, no, it is not more of a benefit for them. What the Conservatives are proposing is more of a benefit for the ultrawealthy.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about helping others, helping Canadians and helping people in his riding. The Conservatives are saying that they are standing up for people, but when I presented a PMB in this room to create a school food program, the Conservatives voted against it.
Can my colleague tell me how this helps kids in schools in his riding? I know he visited some of them, just like I did in my riding.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for bringing forward that very important private member's bill, which did eventually get the support of the House without any Conservative support. The member would know this having studied the issue, but Canada was the last of the G7 countries to get a national school food program. Even the United States had a national school food program before Canada.
The reality of this situation is that we cannot even get Conservatives to recognize that maybe it is a good idea to make sure that kids are properly nourished when they start a day in school. By the way, when we have kids who are participating and receiving food in schools, we immediately start to see stereotypes break down around the haves and the have-nots, which is why programs like this are so important. The Conservatives will use them as opportunities to try to suggest that these programs are nothing other than government bureaucracy. I invite them to come to my riding, talk to the Food Sharing Project and see the work that it is doing on the ground with that government support to get food into the hands and bellies of children.
Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned the child care program. The fact is that there are fewer child care spaces in Canada, across the country, now than there ever were before. The Liberals are committed to building 250,000 child care spaces. They are at 165 spaces. In the GTA, there were 5% fewer child care spaces. Their program is a failure. Every time government goes into a program, it becomes less of a program—
Mr. Speaker, the member voted against it. He votes against every single one of these programs that I talked about. He voted against a national school food program. He voted against the disability benefit. He voted against all of this.
How am I supposed to take him seriously when he gets up in the House and tries to lecture me on supporting Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Cariboo—Prince George.
One year ago, the community of Edmonton Southeast placed its trust in me to deliver change. After more than a decade of Liberal government, my community feels the effects. Grocery prices are sky-high, streets are unsafe and the fuel that powers their lives is more expensive than ever. Conservatives understand the importance of delivering common-sense solutions.
That is why this opposition day motion offers the government an opportunity to deliver relief to Canadians already struggling to make ends meet. Conservatives call upon the Liberal government to act by immediately ending all federal taxes on gas and diesel for the rest of the year, including the GST, and permanently scrapping the clean fuel standard.
Fuel is not a luxury. It is an essential input into almost every part of our economy. The cars that bring our kids to school, hockey practice, soccer games and medical appointments rely on gas. The trucks that bring food to grocery store shelves rely on diesel. The farmers who grow that food rely on fuel. The planes that bring parliamentarians from coast to coast to coast into this chamber are powered by fuel. The Liberals know this.
The Liberals know Canada is a big country. They know millions of Canadians cannot simply stop driving to work, stop transporting goods or stop heating their homes. However, what the Liberals do not seem to understand is the impact their policies are having on working Canadians, on seniors and on families across the country.
In my riding of Edmonton Southeast, I recently visited local seniors' residences. Many residents at these seniors homes tell me the same thing: It is getting more expensive for them to visit their grandchildren and families. Seniors are having to decide between buying a tank of gas or buying fresh produce. Our seniors should not have to make the choice between a drive across town to see their grandson's hockey game and a good meal. That is unacceptable.
Seniors in my community worked hard, paid taxes, built this country and played by the rules. They should not be punished by a government that keeps adding costs and then acts surprised when Canadians cannot keep up. That is why the Conservatives brought forward this motion calling on the government to adopt our plan, which would suspend all federal taxes on gas and diesel until the end of the year.
Our plan is not complicated. Our plan would save Canadians up to 25¢ per litre on gas. That would mean about $20 every time a family fills up a minivan, and up to $1,200 in savings for a family of four over the year.
The Liberals have offered only partial relief for part of the year. They suspended one tax for a limited time and then told Canadians they had already acted, but Canadians know the truth. They are still paying too much at the pump, too much at the grocery store and too much for the basic necessities of life. Lowering fuel costs is not only about the price at the pump. It is about the cost of everything that moves this country. Lower diesel prices reduce the cost of trucking. Lower trucking costs reduce the cost of groceries. Lower grocery prices help people in all our communities across the country.
When fuel becomes more expensive, everything becomes more expensive. The food on our shelves, the material used to build homes and the goods shipped across this country all cost more because fuel costs more. Canadian families have been experiencing this pain every day. Food prices continue to rise faster than household budgets can handle. Families are paying more for meat, vegetables and everyday groceries.
The Liberals say they understand affordability. If that is the case, then the government should have no problem supporting this motion. However, after more than 10 years, the same Liberal government continues to support policies that make life more expensive for Canadians. I will give an example of how disconnected the government is from everyday Canadians. When the finance minister was asked whether the government would extend fuel tax relief, his answer to Canadians was that the Liberals had already acted. I can assure the minister that the residents of my community who are lining up at the pumps do not agree that the government has done enough.
The facts are clear. Canadians are paying much more at the pump than Americans, even while global oil prices affect both countries. The difference is not just about world markets. It is about higher Liberal taxes and a government that continues to take more from Canadians when they can least afford it. Other countries have understood the pressures families are facing and have moved to reduce fuel taxes. Meanwhile, the Liberal government offered Canadians a half-baked solution and then congratulated itself. Canadians do not need more self-praise from Liberal ministers. They need relief, lower costs and a government that understands that when fuel costs more, everything costs more.
This motion is about fairness. At a time when Canadians are already stretched thin, the federal government cannot continue taking more from every litre of gas and diesel. It must scrap all federal taxes for a meaningful amount of time, giving working families immediate relief. In my community of Edmonton Southeast, people are not asking for complicated government programs or more Liberal talking points. They are asking for a government that understands their lives and works for them. They are asking for lower costs and no longer want to feel strapped for cash.
I will conclude with this. Just over a year ago, I came to Ottawa with the intention of delivering common-sense solutions for the hard-working people of my community. This is why the motion is so important. Conservatives are offering a clear and practical solution to an issue facing all Canadians. By ending federal taxes on gas and diesel for the rest of the year, including the GST, and permanently scrapping the clean fuel standard, members of the House can make life easier for those who need it most.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could acknowledge the hypocrisy we see coming from the Conservative Party.
On the one hand, Conservatives talk about the issue of affordability, yet when the government proposes initiatives like the Canada groceries and essentials benefit program, the Conservatives vote against it. When it comes to the national school food program, which, as has been pointed out by the government whip, is feeding hundreds of thousands of young children, the Conservatives vote against it.
There are a number of measures that the government has taken to deal with the issue of affordability because we understand the need. However, the Conservatives continue to vote against those measures. Why the hypocrisy?
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite can say that we are hypocrites when we oppose the subsidies, but those do not go to the base of the issues.
It is not the government's job, in a G7 country, to provide people with these kinds of perks. The job of the government should be to make sure that the people of the country have good-paying jobs so they can afford their own food and make choices about which food their children take to school. They should not be dependent upon the school principal's choosing whether they want to feed some chocolate or other non-nutritious food to the kids.
That being said, the need of the time is to scrap all the taxes on fuel, gas and diesel so Canadians can feel relaxed for the rest of the year.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, does my colleague think that the government is doing too much for the oil industry?
The industry got $10 billion in subsidies last year. The government is rolling out the red carpet for oil and gas and suspending environmental regulations and laws. Meanwhile, globally, oil prices are through the roof, yet production costs here have not gone up. As a result, oil companies are generating record profits that are essentially going straight to shareholders, most of whom are in the United States.
Does my colleague think that the government is doing the right thing when it comes to oil companies?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the responsibility of the government to make sure that corporations are held accountable, it has to do more. The increase in oil prices is not just because of global impacts or the war in the Middle East. It is partially because of our own government's wrong policies and its failure to scrap the taxes in a timely manner to provide immediate relief to Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader says there is hypocrisy on this side of the House because we vote against funding programs to fund programs to fix problems that the Liberals created in the first place. That is the definition of insanity, in my view.
I would like to ask my hon. friend something. He is talking about the temporary relief from fuel taxes in Canada. We have been advocating for a permanent exemption for fuel taxes to really help Canadians in a time of need, not spending more money to fix problems that the government already created. I wonder what my hon. friend has to say about that.
Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with what my colleague has said. The government needs to get out of the way when it comes to affordability, when it comes to providing good-paying jobs and when it comes to cutting bureaucracy in this country.
We need to make sure that all the steps the government takes make Canadians' lives more affordable, and that is exactly what the proposal is about. The opposition day motion is asking the government to cut fuel taxes by 25¢ per litre on gas and diesel for the rest of the year so Canadians can feel relaxed and there can be immediate relief felt.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding Bill C-30, the spring economic update 2026 implementation act.
I would like to notify the House of a technical issue in clause 11. That clause of Bill C-30 proposes amendments to temporarily set the federal fuel excise tax rate to zero for gasoline, unleaded aviation gasoline, diesel and aviation fuel. A reference to leaded aviation gasoline was, however, not included in the proposed amendments in that clause.
As announced by the Prime Minister on April 14, 2026, the temporary suspension of the federal fuel excise tax is intended to apply to aviation fuels generally during the relief period. Therefore, it is the government's intention that the proposed amendments apply for all fuels used in the aviation industry, including leaded aviation gasoline. In response, the government intends to propose an amendment to Bill C-30 at the earliest opportunity, to remedy this issue and to ensure that the fuel tax relief applies to leaded aviation gasoline.
I thank the parliamentary secretary for that correction. It is noted.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George.
Mr. Speaker, on that point of order, Conservatives would support, maybe, during that amendment, the government's changing it for the rest of the year. This is a novel idea. That is why we are here today. While the government is amending the proposal, why does it not just waive the taxes for the rest of the year and support this motion?
I have sat here and listened to the debate, and I apologize to all the people who are struggling to stay awake, not only here in the gallery but also at home watching, the 12 or 13 people who are watching on TV. This is so frustrating because the government says, “Surprise. Do not worry; we are here to help.” Then, of course, the real world sets in for those of us who live in rural and remote areas and know that everything the government has done, well, maybe not everything but most things it has tried to do, in the last 11 years has made life more difficult, especially for people who live in rural and remote areas.
Today in my riding of Cariboo—Prince George, a family pulls up to a pump to get gas. When they see the numbers ticking away, they start doing the math in their head. They wonder what they are going to forego. They cannot go to the grocery store anymore and buy just 100 dollars' worth of groceries. How far will that go? A hundred dollars does not buy even one bag of groceries, especially in rural and remote areas.
My riding is over 90,000 square kilometres. We do not have the benefit of jumping on an O-Train or other rapid transit to get groceries or go to medical services. In my riding, the one thing my constituents know is distance. We have to drive if we want to get groceries, sometimes for long hours. In my riding, it sometimes takes 12 hours for me to drive to a single meeting. Can members imagine someone trying to get medical services for their pregnant wife or a sick child? They have to make painful and hard decisions as to what they are going to do.
I remember when we had this debate in the last Parliament. When I was fighting for forestry and asking what I should tell the forestry worker who is now out of work, there was the audacity of the other side, saying to tell them to move and find another job. We do not have that luxury in rural and remote areas. My riding is resource-based and agriculture-based. Everything we produce in our riding is dependent on fuel and the cost of it. Who pays that price ultimately? It is my constituents. It is the consumer.
The government wants to stand up and say that it is giving a rebate and that, guess what, in June there is going to be a little bit more money in Canadians' pockets. However, while they are giving that money with one hand, they are taking it away with the other hand. The Liberals have made life so unaffordable.
The chief government whip said that he did not say this, but everybody heard him say it, or something like it: He will not vote for a motion that benefits the unbelievably rich.
Here is the reality of what we are asking for in this motion. Let me remind the people who are in the gallery and others who are listening. The motion says:
That, given that,
(i) gas prices are 13% higher in Canada than in the United States, equating to 22 cents more on average per litre,
(ii) gas now costs 50 cents more per litre today than when global oil prices were at the same level in 2014,
(iii) the Minister of Finance and National Revenue told Canadians on May 19, “We have already acted”,
(iv) Canadian families are still paying more to live due to a decade of Liberal credit card budgets, waste and mismanagement,
the House call on the government to offer Canadians immediate relief by ending all federal taxes on gas and diesel for the rest of the year, including the GST, and permanently scrap the Clean Fuel Standard.
If they were really for Canadians, they would just scrap it. It is a common-sense motion. However, they will not. They say that Conservatives are bad and that the government has done a lot for Canadians already. Man, the government is so out of touch. This is my first time back in a number of weeks, due to a surgery, and I cannot say how maddening this is. In my recovery, I sat screaming at the TV because we hear the Liberal gobbledygook every day. They spew it.
What is funny is the hypocrisy of it all. When they had Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, they were all for the carbon tax, but now they have seen the error of their ways. Now all the people on the other side have found a new messiah whom they are following. It is just maddening.
The Liberals are so out of touch. Many of them, not all, have constituencies they can drive across in literally minutes. They have the benefit of rapid transit, such as the O-Train or SkyTrain or other rapid transit, but this is not true for those of us in rural and remote areas, where the Liberals' policies are absolutely punishing us.
Do not even get me started on their “jail, not bail” and their catch-and-release policies. That is coming a bit later.
In rural and remote areas, we are facing the wrath of Liberal policies, and the Liberals just do not get it. It is so frustrating. I believe there are good people on all sides of the House, even though I am getting scorned and mean-mugged right now by somebody on the other side who is staring at me. I do not care. He can laugh all he wants. He is laughing at the hardship of Canadians, and that is disgusting. Canadians should be angry and frustrated at this.
Right now, my staff are probably pulling their hair out because they created a beautiful speech for me, but as members can see, I have not opened even one page, because I am so infuriated by what the Liberals are saying and doing.
The reality is this: After 11 years, a decade, of Liberal mismanagement, the Liberals say they are going to do one thing, but then they do another thing. They apologize and say they will do better. Today their hon. colleague stood up and said, “Oops, we made a mistake in rushing”, and they probably forced closure on it. In rushing the bill through, they made a mistake and want to amend the bill. Here is a simple amendment: When they are opening the bill back up, just eliminate the tax for the rest of the year.
An hon. member: Get 'er done.
Todd Doherty: Get 'er done.
Mr. Speaker, it would benefit so many Canadians. I would stand up, and I think other colleagues would stand up, if the Liberals voted in favour of our motion, and applaud them. In the spirit of good faith and good nature, why does the government not do that?
I know what the Liberals are going to say: “We cannot trust the Conservatives, those dirty Conservatives." This is what they are going to say, but it is not true. There is one side that has been fighting for Canadians, and it is us on this side. It is frustrating that the Liberals stand up time and again and spew these talking points that somebody, short pants in the back room, has come up with. The colleagues across the way stand up and bring forth this stuff, and it is just maddening. It is just untrue.
The Liberals' policies have hurt Canadians, especially people such as those in my riding of Cariboo—Prince George, over 90,000 square kilometres where we do not have the benefit of O-Trains, the SkyTrain or other rapid transit. We actually have to drive for critical services. The Liberals have targeted rural and remote areas. They have actually forced rural and remote against urban in their policies, and that is unfair. They should support our motion, and I hope they will.
Statements by Members
[Statements by Members]
[English]
Alex House
Mr. Speaker, for over 100 years, Alex House in my riding of South Surrey—White Rock has been dedicated to empowering people to build and nurture a strong, connected community by offering programs and services that support individuals and families at every stage of life, from early childhood education and youth programs to seniors' services, wellness initiatives and community outreach.
This year also marks the 50th anniversary of Alex Fest, a celebration held on Semiahmoo First Nation land bringing together families, local artists and neighbours from across the Semiahmoo peninsula to share in creativity, learning and community spirit.
I would like to thank the board, staff and volunteers for their continued commitment and recognize Penny Bradley for her outstanding leadership. At the heart of Alex House is a simple truth. Its mission would not be possible without the hard work and dedication of volunteers.
I congratulate Alex House on these important milestones.
[Translation]
High-Speed Rail
Mr. Speaker, the feedback about Alto's high-speed rail project, which is being promoted by the Liberal Party and relatives of influential ministers, has been very negative.
According to Radio-Canada, some 500 farms and 1,200 landowners will be affected in the Montreal-Ottawa corridor alone. Just imagine how many people who will be expropriated over the 1,000-kilometre route. Considering our Canadian winters, this project will almost certainly run into surprises that will affect the final bill and the train's ability to operate. There are not many such trains running in our climate, especially at cruising speeds of 300 kilometres an hour.
Governing is about making choices, and making choices without social licence would jeopardize our private, unsubsidized means of transportation in favour of a subsidized means of transportation benefiting a handful of regular travellers. I urge the government to listen to the people of Canada before it is too late to turn back. If it is really looking for a good idea to support, there is always Quebec City's third link.
[English]
Forced Adoptions
Mr. Speaker, between 1945 and the 1970s, hundreds of thousands of unmarried mothers in Canada were coerced into surrendering their babies for adoption. This occurred under intense pressure from religious organizations, social workers and the medical community, particularly in maternity homes and hospitals.
I first learned about this shameful part of Canadian history from a 2018 Senate report, led by the Hon. Art Eggleton, entitled “The Shame is Ours”. I got to know the courageous Valerie Andrews, a survivor of this cruel practice and tireless advocate with Origins Canada for the mothers whose babies were taken from them. I read Heather Marshall's profound book, Looking for Jane, which sheds light on the treatment of unwed mothers in Canada in the post-war years.
Australia, Wales, Scotland and Ireland all had similar practices and all have acknowledged the historic wrongs these women and their children were subjected to. These women, those who are still alive today, are elderly, and they deserve to know that what happened to them was wrong.
Alberta
Mr. Speaker, I am a fifth-generation Albertan, and I believe in the future for a strong Alberta within a united Canada. I will vote for Alberta to remain a province of Canada. However, members of the House must understand that many Albertans are angry, and I am one of them. We are angry that, since 2015, this Liberal government has made decisions and introduced laws that harm Alberta right up to this very day.
Now is the time for the Prime Minister to show leadership. It is time for him to acknowledge how much harm his government has done to the unity of this country. It is time for him to show humility. It is time for contrition. It is time for action that will prove to Albertans that their federal government cares enough about Alberta to admit to its mistakes. It is time to show Alberta that Confederation works and to convince Albertans that the best is yet to come for Alberta within this great country, Canada, that so many Albertans and I love so much.
Ken Mayhew
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Ken Mayhew, the late president and CEO of the William Osler Health System Foundation.
Ken was a respected leader in our community and a kind, thoughtful and genuine person who united people in support of causes that strengthen our community. Since joining the Osler foundation in 2012, Ken spent over a decade advancing charitable giving and strengthening health care in Brampton and surrounding areas. Before Osler, Ken devoted more than 20 years to the MS Society of Canada advancing research and support for people living with multiple sclerosis, reflecting his lifelong commitment to improving lives.
I also want to recognize Dr. Frank Martino and the Osler team who continue to carry forward that mission.
My thoughts are with Ken's wife Suzanne, his daughters Kate and Lia, all his family, friends, colleagues and the Osler community.
Ken's legacy of care and service will live on.
Oxford County
Mr. Speaker, as Canadians plan their summer getaways, I invite them to beautiful Oxford County. Known as the dairy capital of Canada, Oxford is where beautiful farmland, small vibrant towns and unforgettable experiences come together. From the famous cheese trails to our farmers' markets, every road leads to something worth discovering. Visitors can stroll along historic downtown streets, enjoy incredible restaurants, relax at the local spa and camp under the stars.
Summers in Oxford come alive with Cowapolooza, the Highland Games, Pizza Fest, TurtleFest, classic car cruises, tractor pulls, fairs and community celebrations. Families can visit farms, pick delicious berries and even watch the vintage Harvard planes take off into the summer skies. Oxford is a place filled with character, community and memories waiting to be made.
This summer, come and visit Oxford.
Beyond Hoops Africa
Mr. Speaker, as we celebrated Africa Day yesterday, I would like to recognize the impactful work of Beyond Hoops Africa under the leadership of James Kamau. Rooted in Surrey's African diaspora, this organization represents the power of community-driven development across borders.
Through initiatives in Kenya, it is expanding access to clean water, building sports facilities and promoting environmental stewardship. Equally important, it is creating meaningful opportunities for Canadians to engage in global citizenship and support sustainable change. Its work reflects the very best of collaboration, compassion and leadership, strengthening ties between Canada and Africa while empowering youth and communities toward a brighter future.
Kitchener Rangers
Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to say just how proud I am of the Kitchener Rangers. What we have seen this season is pure talent and character. Winning the OHL championship does not happen by accident. It takes discipline, resilience and a relentless commitment to one another day in and day out. It is about showing up when it matters, pushing through, having a commitment and believing in each other as a team.
To see the Rangers competing for the Memorial Cup, the most prestigious prize in junior hockey, is something truly special. The Rangers are representing the entire Kitchener-Waterloo community with heart, determination and skill.
The players, coaches and staff have made our city proud. No matter what happens next, they have shown what it takes to compete at the highest level. Let us be real, the boys have this.
Go, Rangers.
[Translation]
Robert Boyer
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Robert Boyer, a man who continues to light up our lives.
Following a career with the Sûreté du Québec, he served as a trusted confidante to our former leader, Gilles Duceppe, inspiring confidence in everything he did. In Rawdon, his memory still moves everyone who knew him and those who are mourning his passing. He had a quick smile and had lived a thousand lives. From the open seas to Camp Mariste, he was driven by a hunger to live life to the fullest, despite the weariness of the flesh. He gave, and gave, and gave some more, until he became the gift itself. His wife, Suzanne, the gentle guardian of his final years, gave unto him what he could no longer give unto others, like a light returning to the source.
My heart goes out to his children and grandchildren, and to his family and friends. People said he was too kind, as if kindness could ever be excessive. The sheriff with the heart of gold will never be forgotten. His memory lives on in every invisible act of kindness and compassion.
I salute Robert and I thank him.
National Consulting Engineering Day
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark National Consulting Engineering Day. This is an opportunity to celebrate a Canadian success story, namely the experts who design and build the infrastructure that is essential to our daily lives.
[English]
Canada is, without question, an engineering superpower. The sector employs nearly a quarter of a million Canadians and contributes about $35 billion to our economy.
[Translation]
As an engineer, I see the tangible impact of this work every day. Whether it is hospital expansions, new ports opening the doors to international trade, or infrastructure corridors linking Canada from coast to coast, these projects transform the lives of Canadians. Although some projects are national in scope, all projects are of vital importance to the communities they serve. That is why, this National Consulting Engineering Day, I invite all members of the House to join me in thanking the teams of engineers and other professionals who help build the country that makes us proud to be Canadian.
[English]
Komagata Maru
Mr. Speaker, this week marks the 112th anniversary of the Komagata Maru incident. The Guru Nanak Jahaz is a monumental event for Sikh communities across our nation. ln 1914, 376 passengers, 340 Sikh, 24 Muslim and 12 Hindu, arrived in Vancouver with dreams for a better future. lnstead, they were unjustly denied entry and forced to return home after months in the harbour.
We remember the hardships faced by those aboard the Guru Nanak Jahaz while also honouring the strength and resilience shown by Sikh Canadians and South Asian communities throughout generations. As a Sikh member of the Conservative caucus, it is an honour to rise in recognition of this anniversary and the lasting contributions Sikh Canadians have made to our nation.
[Translation]
Acadia
Mr. Speaker, Acadian civil society is here on the Hill this week to discuss issues of importance to Acadia. We Acadians have been present in North America for over 400 years. Although we have faced our share of challenges throughout our history, we remain a strong, resilient, proud and forward-looking people.
We are deeply attached to our symbols, such as our national holiday on August 15. In the 2025 budget, we not only doubled funding for National Acadian Day, but we made it permanent. This is a wonderful recognition of our Acadian people by our government.
Furthermore, I am very pleased to announce that the Baie-des-Chaleurs region will host the 2029 Congrès mondial acadien, which is already shaping up to be a unifying event with a promising future. Acadians from all corners of the world will gather in my part of the country to celebrate their identity and strengthen the bonds that already unite them.
[English]
CBC/Radio-Canada
Mr. Speaker, I always thought the role of the media was to hold the powerful accountable and to unapologetically seek the truth. Apparently, however, the CBC views it as trying to deceive and trick individual Canadians into bizarre and intentional traps.
A new TV series from the CBC lied and used fictitious production companies, aliases and made-up stories in an effort to dupe Canadians for the purpose of political propaganda. It deceived RCMP veterans by inviting them to fake ceremonies only to publicly humiliate them. It targeted ordinary citizens who had concerns about land claims and private property rights. It partnered with well-known, far-left American activists to attack Canadian history, Canadian institutions and Canada's first prime minister. It was all paid for using taxpayer money.
The CBC is a Crown corporation. Its mandate is to serve all Canadians, not to target them, not to deceive them and certainly not to produce political propaganda designed to denigrate their beliefs.
LaSalle—Émard—Verdun
Mr. Speaker, today, over 20 residents from my community of LaSalle—Émard—Verdun rose early, packed into a tour bus and came to our nation's capital to see their democracy at work. They have toured the Parliament, they have experienced a rich and evolving history and they will watch the important discussion that we have in this place this afternoon.
[Translation]
Like so many others across Canada, my constituents are small business owners and community leaders, actively involved in community organizations that they lead with pride and passion. Some have been here for generations; others are just beginning their journey. Together, they embody our country's diversity, which is its richness, its strength and its identity.
I would like to extend my warmest thanks to Bienvenue à l'immigrant, CARD, Association Calabrese, the Maison d'Entraide St-Paul et Émard and Association Messinese for all the work they do for our community.
[English]
Liberal Party of Canada
Mr. Speaker, after 11 years, it is the same Liberal waste and Liberal corruption going on every single day.
The Liberals spent nearly $300 million on the PrescribeIT program, yet they could not explain where the money went and why almost nobody used it.
Liberal-connected consultants are now getting a gobsmacking $26 billion a year, up 37% from the previous year. This is costing the average family $1,400.
They are spending $200 million on a so-called spaceport that is nothing more than a gravel parking lot in Nova Scotia.
Meanwhile, after all this spending, 2.2 million Canadians go to food banks every single month. It is really not hard to figure out how these Liberals doubled Justin Trudeau's deficit. What is really hard to figure out is why things are still so hard for average Canadians.
Queen's University
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to welcome leaders from Queen's University to Parliament Hill.
Founded in 1841 in Kingston, well before Confederation, Queen's has a long tradition of academic excellence and public service, helping shape generations of leaders in Canada and beyond. Today, it remains a national leader in research, innovation and education, with work that aligns closely with Canada's priorities. Its contributions in areas such as defence research, advanced technologies and high-performance computing are helping strengthen our security, competitiveness and innovation capacity. Through strong partnerships and commitment to excellence in science, engineering and talent development, Queen's plays an important role in keeping Canada resilient and looking forward in a rapidly changing world.
I thank the delegation for their leadership and engagement and wish them a productive visit.
Oral Questions
[Oral Questions]
[English]
Indigenous Affairs
Mr. Speaker, litigation guideline 14 was the Liberal government instructing federal lawyers not to defend property rights and argue that they extinguished other claims in the federal Cowichan decision. The judge came forward and said, “Okay,” and agreed that aboriginal title, then, came before homeowners' property rights in British Columbia. Now seniors and families toss and turn at night, wondering if they even own their homes.
Will the Prime Minister reverse course, stop muzzling federal lawyers, revoke guideline 14 and defend property rights in B.C.?
Mr. Speaker, as I rose in this House a few weeks ago and made clear, this government will always defend private property rights. That is why this government immediately appealed the decision with respect to Cowichan, on September 8.
We fundamentally disagree with the B.C. Supreme Court's decision. We will use all viable legal options to address and protect private property rights, always, in this country.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is banning his lawyers from making those viable legal arguments, because guideline 14 is still on the federal government's website. He is the client and is instructing the lawyer not to make the valid legal argument that fee simple private property rights extinguish all other claims. If he makes the same arguments, he will get the same results.
Millions of British Columbia homeowners wonder if they even own their home. They are tossing and turning every single night.
Will the Prime Minister admit the Liberal government made a mistake, unmuzzle the lawyers, get rid of guideline 14 and put property rights first in court?
Mr. Speaker, it is sad. The person who is tossing and turning every night is the Leader of the Opposition, trying to come up with new ways to stoke fear and division in this country.
We will always defend private property rights in this country. That is why we immediately appealed. That is why we are acceding with the Montrose claim. That is why we are supporting the City of Richmond and the Province of B.C. in this important case. We will take all viable legal options. We respect property rights and indigenous rights to reconciliation.
[Translation]
Taxation
Mr. Speaker, in 2014, the world was going through an energy crisis. There were wars going on in Syria, Iraq and Ukraine. At the very moment that the price of a barrel of oil was $100, the price at the pump was $1.38. That was 2014, during the Stephen Harper years. Today, the price of oil is lower, but the price at the pump is 40¢ per litre higher. Those are not world impacts. Those are Liberals impacts.
Will the Prime Minister reconsider his taxes and policies that are weakening the dollar, so that Canadians can afford to fill up their tanks?
Mr. Speaker, the government has already cut the consumer carbon tax. That was 18¢ per litre. We suspended the federal fuel tax. Some things have changed since the time of the Harper government, such as the impact on refineries and the impact of supply shortages.
However, one thing never changes. The Leader of the Opposition still opposes all measures that support Canadians.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, there was a world energy crisis, and wars in Syria, Iraq and Ukraine, but at the very moment that oil hit $100 a barrel all around the world, here in Canada it was only $1.38 at the pump. Those were the Harper days in 2014.
Today, with oil prices being lower on a worldwide level, gas prices are over 40¢ a litre higher. Those are not world impacts; those are Liberal impacts.
Will the Prime Minister reverse his policies of high Liberal taxes and a weak Canadian dollar, so Canadians can afford to fill up at the pump?
Mr. Speaker, some things have changed since the Harper days, thankfully. One of them is refinery margins, which are up by 40¢ in Canada. Forty cents, that is a curious number. Refinery margins are up because of the loss of petrol.
One other thing that has not changed is that the Leader of the Opposition is against child care. He is against dental care. He is against pharmacare. He is against everything that supports Canadians in this affordability crisis.
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, lots has changed since Harper's time. Gas prices are more than 40¢ a litre higher, even though the world oil price is actually lower. Now the Prime Minister has made up a new excuse, that there are not enough refineries under his leadership. Maybe he should get out of the way and let refineries build in Canada.
We have a Prime Minister who likes to blame the rest of the world. He has given Canadian households the worst debt anywhere in the G7, with delinquencies up 18% year over year.
Will the Prime Minister stop making excuses and reverse the inflationary policies before Canadians lose their homes?
Mr. Speaker, Liberal policies are delivering wages for Canadians that are growing faster than inflation. The government's policies are delivering inflation that is lower in Canada than in the United States. The Liberal government's policies are delivering female employment that is five percentage points above the United States.
This country is working. We are moving forward. He is trying to hold it back.
Mr. Speaker, things are great for the Brookfield class, for those who stash their cash in offshore tax havens and take government handouts, getting rich, but for the rest of Canadians, here is what Equifax says: insolvency volumes have increased to levels not seen since 2009, up 19% year over year; balance delinquency rates climbed 32% year over year; and Q1 saw insolvency volumes hit 17-year highs, partly due to escalating financial strain on mortgage holders.
If things are so good and affordable, why is it that 1.5 million Canadians missed at least one essential payment in the first three months of the year?
Mr. Speaker, this government is moving forward this economy in the face of a global energy crisis, in the face of a tariff crisis and in the face of wars. This country is the second-strongest economy in the G7. We are growing strong. We have the strongest fiscal position in the G7. We have a plan. Canada has a bright future.
[Translation]
Justice
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has to respect democracy, but yesterday he did the opposite by announcing that he would use the Clarity Act to meddle in Alberta's referendum question. The provinces and Quebec have the right to ask their citizens any question they choose in a referendum. Citizens have the right to answer freely, and the majority wins with 50% of the vote plus one. Only two groups are involved: the government asking the question and the citizens answering it. That is democracy, plain and simple.
Will the Prime Minister respect that?
Mr. Speaker, as Prime Minister, I have to heed the experts' advice.
I have just received the experts' opinion on the applicability of the Clarity Act. It does not apply to Alberta's question. However, according to the Clarity Act, in Canada, there must be a clear expression of a will by a clear majority of the population of that province in order to have a true vote on secession.
Mr. Speaker, respecting democracy means not only avoiding interfering in referendum questions, but also avoiding interfering in the people's answer. A clear majority is 50% of the votes plus one. As the Prime Minister knows, all his laws are passed with a majority of 50% plus one. His own majority is 50% plus one. Even his own parliamentary secretary for justice said that the rule is 50% plus one. That is democracy, except for referendums apparently, because of the Clarity Act.
Will the Prime Minister stop this drift away from democracy?
Mr. Speaker, we need to respect democracy, we need to respect the laws of Parliament and the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada.
Under the Clarity Act, the House of Commons must consider the following factors to establish the definition of a clear vote: “the size of the majority of valid votes cast in favour of the secessionist option [and] the percentage of eligible voters voting in the referendum”.
It is not 50% plus one.
Mr. Speaker, there is no place in a democracy for a law that does not respect the will of the people as expressed by a majority of 50% plus one vote. There is no place in a democracy for a law that overturns the will of the people by claiming, after the fact, that the question or the result was not clear enough. There is no place in a democracy for a law that flouts the rules of the ballot box when the outcome is not what the government wanted. We must steer clear of this slippery slope to authoritarianism.
Will the Prime Minister finally make up his mind and repeal the undemocratic Clarity Act?
[English]
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is fond of blaming the rest of the world for the terrible economy he has created here at home, but the other G7 countries face tariffs and high oil prices, and none of them have anywhere near the level of household debt here in Canada. By far, Canadian households, with $1.77 of debt for every dollar of income, are far more indebted than any other country: in fact, a third higher than the second-worst. I quote Equifax: “[The] missed payment level highlights severe financial strain in high-priced markets, with mortgage delinquencies [up] 52 per cent in Ontario and 36 per cent in [B.C.]”.
If people are doing so well under his leadership, why are they missing their mortgage payments?
Mr. Speaker, while that leader is focused on podcasts, fitness videos and empty-parking-lot press conferences, on this side of the House we are focused on delivering affordability for Canadians. We just paused the federal excise tax on gas, 10¢ a litre. We cancelled the consumer carbon tax, which is 18¢ a litre. Combined, that is 28¢ a litre in savings for Canadians.
It is time for that leader to put down the kettlebells and help us build Canada strong.
Mr. Speaker, come on, the Prime Minister could have done better than that. If he is going to hide under his desk and get someone else to speak in his favour, he has to get something better than that. That was about as good as his economic policies.
He owes Canadians answers. The reality is that we have the highest household debt of any G7 country, by far, and we have seen that in the first quarter of this year, there has been a 19% increase in year-over-year delinquencies. Canadians cannot make their minimum payments.
Instead of smirking and hiding behind his back bench, will the Prime Minister stand up and announce he will reverse course so Canadians can pay their bills?
Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I had lunch with Sean Strickland from Canada's Building—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
I did not hear who the minister had lunch with, because there was too much noise on this side.
The hon. Minister of Jobs and Families can start from the top.
Mr. Speaker, since those guys do not know how to pick up a cheque, in fact, I paid for lunch and I took Sean Strickland, president of Canada's Building Trades Unions, out for lunch because we want to hear their ideas about how we make sure that these good, union jobs, which, by the way, employers need all across the country, come to fruition.
Canada's Building Trades Unions' operating engineers, who are here in Ottawa today, are all so excited about the plan to build Canada strong and get major projects off the ground using good union labour that provides great-paying jobs, something that I know they are going to—
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are skipping lunch because they cannot afford to pay their bills, while this Prime Minister and the Brookfield class skip their tax bills.
Meanwhile, here at home, here is the reality. Equifax is out this week with a new report. This is the organization that checks the credit scores of individual Canadians. It says, “insolvency volumes have increased to levels not seen since 2009”, 18 years ago.
Will the Prime Minister announce that he will reverse the inflationary, debt-ridden policies so that Canadians do not go bankrupt?
Mr. Speaker, last week I was in Marathon, Ontario, to talk about mining. There is a mining boom in northern Ontario, something I think these guys are not aware of. Do members know what came up over and over again? It was gratitude for a government that is taking seriously the investment into natural resource extraction in northern Ontario, that is helping provinces in the country get natural resource projects off the ground, and that is taking seriously the need to invest in the skilled trades workers, who, by the way, create the great jobs with pensions in hard-working environments, which is something I think that member does not really understand.
Mr. Speaker, 3.1 million Canadians will renew their mortgages over the next two years into much higher rates after this Liberal government, in particular this Liberal Prime Minister, advised people to take on extra debt with the promise that rates would be low for long. Now, the chickens are coming home to roost, with rate increases that threaten more and more people with the loss of their homes. In the first three months of this year, 1.5 million Canadians missed a payment on a credit card or a mortgage.
Will the Prime Minister announce that he is reversing the inflationary high-tax policies so Canadians keep their homes?
Mr. Speaker, instead of the Leader of the Opposition lifting kettlebells, maybe he should come to Kitimat and see where we are building new LNG facilities. Maybe he should come to Dease Lake, where we are building the biggest mines in the world. Maybe he should come to Darlington, where we are building new nuclear reactors. Maybe he should come to Nova Scotia, where we are building new projects. Maybe, instead of talking down Canada, he should start coming to see how we are building Canada.
Mr. Speaker, he is bringing down Canada. It does not help the Canadians who cannot pay their bills for that minister to get up and take credit for projects that were approved 14 years ago, nor does it help when the Prime Minister of Canada refuses to even stand on his feet and defend his disastrous economic record at a time when our households are by far the most indebted anywhere in the G7 because the Liberals block projects, because they have raised taxes and because they have caused inflation and the highest housing costs in the entire group of seven nations.
Will the Prime Minister reverse these inflationary policies before Canadians lose their homes?
Mr. Speaker, we know why this member asks all the questions. It is to save him writing the questions out for all the other members of the bench who do not get to ask the questions. While we are asking questions, when is that member going to answer why he would refuse saving Canadians thousands of dollars on child care? When is he going to justify his opposition to reducing taxes for Canadians? When is he going to justify his opposition to creating the Canada child benefit? All of these things save Canadians thousands of dollars. Why is he against them?
Mr. Speaker, the reason I am asking a few extra questions is that the Prime Minister only shows up once a week, and he will not get out of his chair and answer them.
I would ask the opposition leader to be careful of that. We are getting very close to the edge there.
The member may continue.
Mr. Speaker, I know the Prime Minister is very fragile. He is not used to taking any difficult questions, but the reality is that Canadians cannot pay their bills. In the first year in office, he has driven up household delinquencies by 18%. He has given Canadians the worst household debt in the G7. Delinquencies have climbed by 32% year over year, and in Q1 we saw a 17-year high due to financial strains in Canadian household finances. Will the Prime Minister get off the backs of Canadians so they can pay their bills?
Mr. Speaker, in the first year of this Prime Minister's tenure, we have the number one leading economy in the G7 for foreign investment. In this Prime Minister's first year, we have approved major projects. We have approved mines. We have approved building. We are training young Canadians, and we are building this country brick by brick. The blame Canada brigade can sit down and take a seat.
Mr. Speaker, we have the number one economy in terms of debt for households, the number one economy in the cost of housing and the number one economy in the cost of food inflation. Those are the only metrics on which this government is leading. We are number two when it comes to unemployment, with the unemployment rate being a third higher than in the United States. Now we see the delinquencies and the missed payments leading to a potential bankruptcy crisis, while the Prime Minister sits and hides behind his back bench. Will he stand up, own up, take responsibility and announce the reversal of policies so Canadians can pay their bills?
Mr. Speaker, let us do a comparison. On this side, we have a world-class statesman and a world-class business and economic leader. On that side, they have empty-parking-lot press conferences with slogans, gimmicks and props.
On this side of the House, we are going to build the strongest economy in the G7 and the most resilient economy in the G7. We are cutting taxes. We are investing in Canada.
It is time for the member to stop the fitness videos and help us build Canada strong.
[Translation]
The Environment
Mr. Speaker, CTV News reported that the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie is considering leaving the Liberals this week, and the Minister of Industry is giving him a reason to do so. She is defending the Liberal's shift to oil by saying that we are in a global energy crisis that is affecting gas prices.
First, a new pipeline ten years from now will have no impact on the price of gas today. Second, does she realize that she is confirming what the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie has been clearly saying, that the Liberals are abandoning the environment to sell more oil?
Mr. Speaker, if we are going to talk about what I stand for and what I am working on, I will say that last week we launched our electricity strategy. This is something that Hydro‑Québec asked for when it told us that it wanted an investment tax credit. That was a major request, and not only will it help strengthen the domestic electricity grid, but it will also help expand interprovincial interties. That is also what we have done with the Province of Alberta, with the interties that it will have with neighbouring provinces.
We will continue to do a great job of cutting emissions and growing our country.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment, Climate Change and Nature is clearly no stranger to greenwashing. The Prime Minister's climate betrayal will cost him the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie. However, there are still about 15 Liberals who believe the Prime Minister is concerned about the environment. They wrote him a short letter saying they are concerned about the pipeline deal. The reality is actually what the Prime Minister said to the media. He made it clear that there are 160 other MPs in the caucus.
With a response like that, there will soon be one fewer MP. What are the other 15 waiting for to follow him out the door?
Mr. Speaker, I am extremely proud to be part of this team. Despite the comments made by my opposition colleague, I know that we will achieve net zero by 2050. I know that we will protect 30% of Canada's land and water by 2030. I know that we will work with Canadians to find a strategy that will enable us to achieve our goals—not a strategy that divides us, but one that unites us.
We will get there, and that is how we will build Canada.
Finance
Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more important than having enough to eat. Unfortunately, Canadian families are struggling. Every month, 2.2 million Canadians are visiting food banks, one-third of them children. Food prices are rising twice as fast as inflation, and Canada has the worst food inflation in the G7. That is the result of 10 years of Liberal management.
Will the Prime Minister finally put an end to his costly budgets so that Canadians can make ends meet?
Mr. Speaker, the opposition member is right in saying that some Canadians are struggling to make ends meet. What is difficult to explain is why this member votes against measures to help Canadians every chance he gets. Take, for example, the Canada groceries and essentials benefit. On June 5, 12 million Canadians will get a cheque to help them with the cost of groceries.
Another example is the Canadian dental care plan, which helps 20,000 people in the member's riding. He voted against that plan. Finally, I will mention a flagship measure, the Canada child benefit. The member voted against $73 million in his riding—
Mr. Speaker, if all of these wonderful promises had worked, then Canadians would not be having such a hard time putting food on the table. That is what is happening after 10 years of rhetoric. The Liberals say nice things and claim that everything is fine, when Canadians are experiencing the exact opposite. One in four families is experiencing food insecurity. The cost of basics is rising for Canadian families. The price of housing has reached record highs. The cost of gas jumped 29%. That is what Canadians are experiencing every day.
Will the Prime Minister understand that spending money that we do not have racks up debt for our children and fuels inflation?
Mr. Speaker, I just listed the programs that provide direct assistance to the people in the riding of Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk. The member voted against these measures every chance he got over the past 10 years. We will not take lessons from him on how to help the most vulnerable Canadians and Quebeckers.
What sets us apart on this side of the House is that, yes, we believe that we need social programs and direct assistance for Canadians, but we also have a vision for the future that involves building major projects. Take, for example, the announcement regarding the Port of Québec, which will become the sixth international container port. There is also the Contrecoeur project, the Nouveau Monde Graphite mine, the high-speed train and training for young trades workers across the country. That is this government's vision for building a strong economy.
Mr. Speaker, the story never changes with this Liberal government: more costs, more taxes, more spending and most of all, less money in the pockets of Canadian families. Today, the Liberals' inflationary deficits have landed us in $1 trillion worth of debt. This Prime Minister is just another spendthrift Liberal.
My question is simple: When is the Prime Minister going to stop blowing up the deficit and maxing out the credit card of people living in Beauce?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the first thing we did as a government was to lower taxes for 22 million Canadians. Help with groceries is also on the way for 12 million Canadians and will lower their weekly costs.
I do not believe that my colleague supported the Canada child benefit, even though it is helping 11,400 families in his riding. Another 29,000 constituents of the Beauce community are also receiving dental care, a program that my colleague voted against.
[English]
Taxation
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are not proposing measures that will make life more affordable for Canadians. We know that their policies are driving up inflation and making life more expensive. Families are paying more for gas, groceries and housing. Now, Global News is reporting that many Canadians are spending more than their entire income on food and rent. Canadians were promised relief by the Prime Minister, but he has delivered more costs, more taxes and more debt on the national credit card.
Conservatives have a real plan to deliver relief by removing all federal fuel taxes for the year. On what date will these Liberals finally adopt it?
Mr. Speaker, there is more good news, as the Minister of Finance likes to point out. The good news is that canola sales to China are happening. Uranium sales to India are happening. Canada is eliminating interprovincial barriers. We are building a great Canadian economy. The best news is that we are standing alongside Saskatchewan to continue building the Saskatchewan economy.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister falsely claimed to Canadians that “affordability's the best it's [ever] been in over a decade”. We are 11 years into the Liberal government, and one in four Canadians is living in a food-insecure household. Two million Canadians are visiting a food bank each month, and over 13,000 residents in Niagara Falls need the services of our food bank, Project Share.
Conservatives have a real plan to give Canadians relief from Liberal inflation by removing all federal fuel taxes for the rest of the year. On what date will these Liberals adopt it?
Mr. Speaker, there are Canadians, certainly, who are experiencing hardship, but they will not find a plan for their future on the Conservative side, with all due respect. The member talks about food prices. The hon. Leader of the Opposition talked about food prices. There is no plan, in fact, on that side. They want to cut every support that goes towards that: the school food program, the Canada child benefit, dental care, child care. The list goes on. This is the Conservative approach: to throw whatever they can at the wall and catch a few headlines. It will not work.
Canadians need a serious government. That is exactly what they have. We will continue to do this work.
Emergency Management
Mr. Speaker, wildfires do not wait for us to be ready. I am reminded of the wildfires in my riding of South Shore—St. Margarets. The government recognizes the need to work together as a nation to be prepared so that we can protect all Canadians. That is why the government has committed $316 million through budget 2025 to the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre to lease firefighting aircraft to establish a surge capacity.
Can the Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience update the House on how we are better preparing for the upcoming wildfire season?
Mr. Speaker, we made a commitment to bolster our wildfire aerial capacity—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we have delivered. Contracts are now in place to lease 10 additional wildfire aircraft that will support provinces and territories, starting this wildfire season. In line with our government's buy Canadian policy, each of the companies leasing aircraft to CIFFC is a Canadian firm. This investment will protect lives, homes and communities for years to come.
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship
Mr. Speaker, every week Canadians get up to another headline about the immigration minister botching her job. Corruption runs rampant in her department. Criminals walk away with discount sentences. She is issuing 215,000 new work permits while Canadian kids cannot find jobs, with no plan to deport the temporary residents who will not leave. Today, we learn that she is covering the premium health care costs of nearly 74,000 people whose asylum claims have already been rejected as fraudulent.
How does it feel to be failing so publicly and so repeatedly on a file that is so important?
Mr. Speaker, I am actually very glad to receive this question today because the Parliamentary Budget Officer verified, today, what we have known all along. That is that the reasons for the costs are tied to volumes, and volumes are coming down. We have substantially reduced the asylum numbers by 60%. Within three years, there will be $200 million in annual savings from changes to the supplemental coverage that we have put in place. We are taking action and it is working.
Mr. Speaker, when Canadians know that nothing she is doing is working and half the people sitting beside her are saying the same thing out loud, it stops being opposition criticism and it starts being a pattern with the minister. She cannot handle the hard questions from across the aisle. She needs to get a grip on what is actually happening in her ministry.
The minister refused to answer a question yesterday. On Thursday, she has four hours at committee to make it right. Will she be there for the full four hours, or will we finally get somebody who is competent at their job?
Mr. Speaker, I do not know what that member does not understand. I have said yes. I will be there for the four hours. There is nothing magical about that. That is exactly why I am here.
Let me continue, though, about the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Let me remind people that claimants are not just service users. They are also taxpayers. The people she is talking about are real human beings. We give them work permits. In 2023, the budget officer confirmed, the amount that went into general revenue for this population equated the amounts that they were getting.
Mr. Speaker, I am really glad that the hon. member brought up the Parliamentary Budget Officer, because she just released a damning report revealing that nearly 74,000 rejected asylum claimants remain eligible for luxury health care benefits under the Liberals' interim federal health program. This includes rejected asylum claimants who are listed as wanted for failing to show up at their removal proceedings, yet under the Liberals, all of these claimants still qualify for luxury health benefits like physiotherapy, counselling and home care.
Why are the Liberals providing better health care to rejected asylum claimants than to hard-working Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, the minister has just gone through and, this Thursday, will again be going through extensive questioning. She will be defending results that have achieved incredible results in one year of government. We have reduced the number of temporary Canadians. We have reduced the number of asylum seekers. We have saved money for Canadians.
The real question is why Conservatives are against providing health care to some of the most vulnerable people on this earth, including claimants from Ukrainian war zones?
Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Liberals understand ho w profoundly unfair the system is right now, to everybody. The Liberals brought too many non-citizens into Canada too fast for health care to keep up, and millions of Canadians are waiting for basic medical services.
Today, the PBO showed that there are 74,000 failed asylum seekers, people who have bogus asylum claims, who are getting benefits like vision care. This is costing hundreds of millions of dollars. Premium health benefits should be going to Canadians, not to failed asylum claimants who should be removed from Canada. Why are they not?
Mr. Speaker, let us do this one more time. This is what we are actually doing. The interim federal health program covers limited temporary health coverage to vulnerable people who are not yet eligible for provincial coverage. It covers essential services. It is not for luxury items, and the cost is tied to volumes. As I have said, over and over again, we have reduced that volume by 60% from 2024. We will keep reducing that pressure.
Mr. Speaker, the minister just said that the program is temporary. That is what it was designed to be, but the PBO said today that failed asylum claimants, people who are supposed to be removed from the country, are getting benefits like vision care and physiotherapy for years. That is why the cost is mushrooming year after year. A billion dollars could build a hospital. Instead, it is going to failed asylum claimants. That is not fair.
Why will she not cancel these luxury benefits?
Mr. Speaker, this is what the PBO actually said today. The PBO said that within three years we will see substantial savings from changes to the supplemental coverage of $200‑plus million. We will also see another $200‑plus million in annual savings from the asylum reform measures that we took in Bill C-12. I thank the member for finally agreeing to put that law into action.
Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, when Canadians go through airport security, they submit to invasive screening. Medical implants are flagged. Personal items are confiscated. They are even emptying their baby bottles, yet a worker at Pearson says someone could bring a cruise missile through without detection.
Canadians have already been detained abroad because of security failures here at home. Will the part-time Minister of Transport admit that these failures put Canadians at risk and apologize to those whose lives and reputations have already been harmed by his inaction?
Mr. Speaker, the RCMP has investigated this matter and arrested six individuals in this case. It is a serious offence to change luggage tags. The RCMP officers are working with airport authorities and with other international partners. We are going to continue putting investments into the RCMP by increasing it by 1,000 new members so that we can continue doing the work that is needed to crack down on organized crime.
Mr. Speaker, who is minding business at Pearson right now? That answer of 1,000 members someday is not going to work. If these gaps exist at Pearson, our largest airport, why would Canadians believe they do not exist somewhere else?
Will the Liberal government commit, yes or no, to conducting the same security audits at every major airport in Canada and tabling those findings here in Parliament for all Canadians to see? If they will not, is it because this part-time Minister of Transport has no idea how bad it is, or does he just have no idea of what to do?
Again, I warned the member already. We must call members by their proper titles.
We will go to the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime.
Mr. Speaker, we are determined to crack down on organized crime. That is why we have invested $1.3 billion into our borders. That includes our airports. This is the most substantial investment ever made by a government to beef up our security at our borders. It includes new technology. It includes new personnel for the RCMP so that we can catch the organized crime members who are committing these offences.
Mr. Speaker, in the fall of 2024, a senior in Prince George returned home to find his house being ransacked and robbed. When he tried to stop the perpetrators, they ran over him, dragged him down the road and left him for dead. They were caught later that day and released just hours later. The victim's family has just been informed that the charges against the perpetrators have been dropped. They left him for dead, and they got off scot-free.
When will the Liberal Prime Minister finally put victims before criminals?
Mr. Speaker, from the first conversation I had with the Prime Minister, he has asked us to strengthen Canada's criminal laws so we can protect communities and build a safer Canada.
We have advanced Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act, which represents some of the strongest measures in the Criminal Code in generations. People who commit serious crimes and threaten public safety should be incarcerated. I hope that we can have the collaboration of all members of the House to advance these laws to protect communities and ensure every Canadian can go to bed safe at night.
Mr. Speaker, the victim was run over, dragged down a road and left for dead, and the perpetrators are off scot-free. The victim now lives in fear that they are going to finish the job. He suffered broken ribs, flail chest and brain damage. He needed facial reconstruction surgery, and the perpetrators are free to do this again.
Under the Liberals, criminals face zero accountability. Canadians are fed up, and that is the government's legacy.
Will the Prime Minister stand up today to commit to calling this senior, who is afraid for his life, and explain to him and his family why the perpetrators are off scot-free?
Mr. Speaker, let me condemn, in the harshest possible terms, acts of violence committed against innocent Canadians.
I have good news for the member opposite. There is something he can do to help. He can add his voice in support of the various pieces of criminal legislation that have come before the House for which we will be seeking royal assent very soon. The legislation that we have put forward has been informed by municipal governments, provincial governments and law enforcement officials in every corner of this country. It has the support of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Police Association of Ontario and, in fact, the provincial government of his home province.
I would ask that all the members of the House get on with the business of making Canada safer.
Women and Gender Equality
Mr. Speaker, when women and gender-diverse Canadians face barriers to entering the workforce, accessing leadership opportunities or living free from violence, it does not just impact individuals; it holds back the entire economy and our communities. Organizations across Canada are working every day to support survivors, expand opportunities and build safer, more inclusive communities, but they need stable and timely support. After obstruction from the Conservatives, our budget is now delivering support for these organizations.
Can the Minister of Women and Gender Equality update the House on how these investments will strengthen support across Canada?
Mr. Speaker, building the strongest economy in the G7 means full and equal participation of women and gender-diverse Canadians.
This is why I announced $77 million in funding to extend projects to nearly 400 organizations for women and 2SLGBTQIA+ communities across Canada. These are organizations on the front lines, such as Victim Services of Peel, that are helping women thrive in the workforce and supporting victims of gender-based violence. They are building more inclusive communities across the country, and that is how we are going to build Canada strong.
Indigenous Affairs
Mr. Speaker, economists and business voices across the country are warning that, when people no longer trust the rules around property ownership, investment disappears, housing slows down and affordability gets worse. We are now seeing stalled projects, bankrupt developers and fewer homes being built while young Canadians lose hope of ownership, but the Liberal government calls that fearmongering. Instead of admitting there is a huge problem, they keep acting like everything is just okey-dokey.
Did the Liberals vote down our Conservative motion to protect property rights yesterday because they are completely blind to this very real problem?
Mr. Speaker, the motion that was presented yesterday was full of false information, including when they talked about the Musqueam agreement.
The Musqueam agreement is available online, but I know the Conservatives have not read it. I will feel free to read section 5.1: “This Agreement does not constitute a treaty or lands claims agreements”. I will also read section 5.2: “This Agreement does not create, amend, define, establish, abrogate or derogate from Musqueam's Rights and Title.”
The whole agreement is available online, and I encourage the Conservatives to read it.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government calls concerns about private property rights fearmongering, yet the Liberals, as the number one defendant, are appealing the Cowichan decision. The Liberal government is depending entirely on Montrose Properties, a private business, to defend private property on behalf of Canadians. On top of this, the Liberals voted against a Conservative motion that would protect private property rights.
Canadian homeowners deserve certainty and clarity. Will the Liberal Prime Minister secure the private property rights of Canadians and provide economic certainty while creating respectful partnerships with first nations?
Mr. Speaker, the federal government, the province, the City of Richmond, Musqueam, Tsawwassen and Cowichan are all appealing the Cowichan decision.
There is also another court case. It is in New Brunswick. The Court of Appeal reached a very different conclusion than what was reached in Cowichan. We now have two courts in Canada taking very different approaches. This divergence is exactly why clarity from the courts is required, and that is the clarity we are seeking in the Cowichan case. The Cowichan case is in active litigation, including today. We will defend private property.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal housing minister accused Conservatives of fearmongering over the Cowichan ruling, but the impact is already real and immediate. According to expert reports in March, Richmond property value could fall by 40% because of uncertainty created by the government. Families, homeowners and businesses are worried, yet the Liberals remain in denial, denying the impact and denying that their litigation directive was a mistake.
When will the government wake up and restore certainty for homeowners?
Mr. Speaker, our government knows that the path of reconciliation with first nations is how Canada moves forward as a country. Negotiated agreements, like that with Tsawwassen in my riding of Delta, are one solution. With Cowichan, negotiations failed, and the case went to the courts. We disagree with the B.C. Supreme Court decision and have filed our appeal. Our government has always defended and will always defend private property ownership.
Natural Resources
Mr. Speaker, during the last election, we committed to connecting Canada's electricity grids from east to west rather than from north to south.
Can the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources share with the House how we are going to build those interconnections, grow Canada's clean electricity capacity and ensure families and businesses can decarbonize affordably and reliably?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his leadership on this issue.
If we want to build one strong Canadian economy, strengthen our energy security and seize the economic opportunities of electrification, we need a more connected grid from east to west. This is why our national electricity strategy will refer the development of a new comprehensive transmission interconnect investment strategy to the Major Projects Office. This strategy will help grow our electricity grid and help us become more climate competitive.
We have now launched a consultation period to hear from Canadians, and we look forward to working together to build the clean electricity backbone Canada needs for our future.
Fisheries and Oceans
Mr. Speaker, Brett Cox, a fisherman from English Harbour West, reached out to me yesterday and said, “We need the tariff gone on sea cucumber or that fishery is done.” He is referring to the 25% Chinese tariff, which still applies to all Canadian seafood except lobster and crab products. China is the second largest market for our seafood.
If the Liberal Prime Minister's new relationship with China is beneficial to Canada, why are these crippling tariffs still in place?
Mr. Speaker, I have not heard from this member since the day he called the school food program garbage, so it is nice to see him stand in the House. My counterparts and I continue to work to remove tariffs, but the spring economic update has nearly $1 billion for small craft harbours. I want to ask the member, will he vote to support this?
Labour
Mr. Speaker, workers know that progress is won by exercising their right to strike, including the the eight-hour workday, maternity leave and fair living wages, yet the Liberals keep violating this right by using section 107 of the Canada Labour Code to end strikes without a fair deal. That is why I tabled Bill C-247 to repeal this strike-breaking tool, and it is supported by the CLC, CUPE, CUPW, PSAC, the Teamsters, the steelworkers and more.
Will the Liberals stop attacking workers and support my bill?
Mr. Speaker, the real question is whether the member will vote for the spring economic update, which invests $6 billion in working people, including in skilled trades workers, in unions and in the people across the country who are not only bringing in the next generation of tradespeople, but also ensuring these good union jobs are filled with people who have the opportunity to take advantage of them.
There are big things to be done in this country, and we are going to do them together with strong union members.
The Environment
Mr. Speaker, the fossil fuel lobby had at least 17 direct meetings with the Prime Minister and environmental groups had zero. The Prime Minister axed the carbon tax, abandoned the emissions cap, killed the EV mandate, signed a deal to build a new pipeline, stepped up on greenwashing, took a sledgehammer to regulatory reviews, created a $25-billion wealth fund that will no doubt benefit the oil and gas industry and refused to impose an excess profit tax when companies are poised to make over $90 billion in profit this year alone.
Can the Prime Minister tell Canadians what else the oil and gas industry wants?
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member opposite, who is from British Columbia, stood up because it gives me an opportunity to talk about the fact that I just came back from the coastal waters of British Columbia, where we established a national marine conservation area reserve with six first nations in the province of British Columbia. It is going to protect an area larger than the size of Prince Edward Island.
This is a chance for us to do good work in partnership, and that is what we are doing. We are protecting the environment, protecting nature and building strong connections with our communities.
[Translation]
Presence in Gallery
Business of the House
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion:
That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, on Tuesday, May 26, 2026, and Thursday, May 28, 2026, during the debate on the business of supply pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a):
(a) the time provided for consideration of the Main Estimates in committee of the whole be extended beyond four hours, as needed, to include a minimum of 16 periods of 15 minutes each;
(b) members wishing to speak during the debate may indicate to the Chair that they will be dividing their time with one or more members;
(c) responses by the minister or parliamentary secretary approximately reflect the time taken by the question, provided that at least 15 seconds be allotted for each response;
(d) no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair; and
(e) at the conclusion of the time provided for debate or when no member wishes to speak, whichever comes first, the committee shall rise, and the House shall immediately adjourn to the next sitting day.
All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.
(Motion agreed to)
[English]
Mr. Speaker, during question period, you suggested that I should be using the proper title of a minister or a member.
In my comments, if you review the tapes, I did quite rightly refer to the Minister of Transport. I understand you did not like, or maybe the Liberals did not like, the term “part-time”, but had I said the “effervescent” Minister of Transport, that would have been an adjective, the same as I would say a “part-time” Minister of Transport.
If you do not find that this is correct, could you please inform me as to whether or not I should be referring to the “sometimes” House leaders—
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
[English]
Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act
The House resumed from May 25 consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the spring economic update tabled in Parliament on April 28, 2026, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.
It being 3:14 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment at the second reading stage of Bill C-30.
Call in the members.
[Translation]
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)
(Division No. 124)
YEAS
Members
AboultaifAlbas
Allison
Anderson
Anstey
Arnold
Au
Baber
Bailey
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Bélanger (Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt)
Berthold
Bexte
Bezan
Block
Bonk
Borrelli
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Calkins
Caputo
Chambers
Chong
Cobena
Cody
Cooper
Dalton
Dancho
Davidson
Davies (Niagara South)
Dawson
Deltell
DeRidder
Diotte
Doherty
Dowdall
Duncan
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake)
Falk (Provencher)
Gallant
Généreux
Genuis
Gill (Brampton West)
Gill (Calgary McKnight)
Gill (Windsor West)
Gill (Abbotsford—South Langley)
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Groleau
Guglielmin
Gunn
Hallan
Hardy
Ho
Hoback
Holman
Jackson
Jansen
Kelly
Khanna
Kibble
Kirkland
Kmiec
Konanz
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kronis
Kuruc
Kusie
Lake
Lantsman
Lawrence
Lawton
Lefebvre
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Lloyd
Lobb
Mahal
Majumdar
Malette (Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk)
Mantle
Martel
Mazier
McCauley
McKenzie
McLean (Calgary Centre)
Melillo
Menegakis
Moore
Morin
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Poilievre
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Reynolds
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ross
Rowe
Ruff
Scheer
Schmale
Seeback
Shipley
Small
Steinley
Stevenson
Strahl
Strauss
Stubbs
Thomas
Tochor
Tolmie
Uppal
Van Popta
Vien
Viersen
Vis
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Williamson
Zimmer
Total: -- 137
NAYS
Members
AcanAl Soud
Ali
Alty
Anand
Anandasangaree
Auguste
Bains
Baker
Bardeesy
Barsalou-Duval
Battiste
Beaulieu
Beech
Begum
Belanger (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River)
Bendayan
Bittle
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Blois
Bonin
Boulerice
Brière
Brunelle-Duceppe
Carney
Carr
Casey
Chagger
Champagne
Champoux
Chang
Chartrand
Chatel
Chen
Chenette
Chi
Church
Clark
Connors
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Dandurand
Danko
Davies (Vancouver Kingsway)
DeBellefeuille
d'Entremont
Deschênes
Deschênes-Thériault
Desrochers
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Duclos
Duguid
Dzerowicz
Earle
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Erskine-Smith
Eyolfson
Fancy
Fanjoy
Fergus
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fortin
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Fry
Fuhr
Gaheer
Gainey
Garon
Gasparro
Gaudreau
Gazan
Gerretsen
Gill (Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan)
Gladu
Gould
Grant
Greaves
Guay
Guilbeault
Gull-Masty
Hajdu
Hanley
Harrison
Hepfner
Hirtle
Hodgson
Hogan
Housefather
Hussen
Iacono
Idlout
Jaczek
Jeneroux
Johns
Joly
Joseph
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Klassen
Koutrakis
Kwan
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lamoureux
Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles)
Lapointe (Sudbury)
Larouche
Lattanzio
Lauzon
Lavack
Lavoie
LeBlanc
Leitão
Lemire
Lightbound
Long
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
Ma
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacDonald (Cardigan)
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Malette (Bay of Quinte)
Maloney
Martin
May
McGuinty
McKelvie
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McKnight
McLean (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke)
McPherson
Ménard
Mendès
Michel
Miedema
Mingarelli
Morrissey
Myles
Naqvi
Nathan
Nguyen
Noormohamed
Normandin
Ntumba
Oliphant
Olszewski
O'Rourke
Osborne
Perron
Petitpas Taylor
Powlowski
Ramsay
Rana
Robertson
Rochefort
Romanado
Royer
Sahota
Saini
Sarai
Sari
Savard-Tremblay
Sawatzky
Schiefke
Sgro
Sheehan
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Simard
Sodhi
Solomon
Sousa
Ste-Marie
St-Pierre
Sudds
Tesser Derksen
Thompson
Valdez
van Koeverden
Vandenbeld
Villeneuve
Watchorn
Weiler
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Zerucelli
Zuberi
Total: -- 197
PAIRED
Members
AitchisonMiller
Plamondon
Provost
Thériault
Turnbull
Total: -- 6
Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find consent to apply the results from the last vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting yes.
[Translation]
[English]
Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees to apply the vote and says, “no goddamn way”.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
I understand that the member may be upset with something in the legislation, but I know that the member agrees that is not parliamentary language.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
(Division No. 125)
YEAS
Members
AcanAl Soud
Ali
Alty
Anand
Anandasangaree
Auguste
Bains
Baker
Bardeesy
Battiste
Beech
Begum
Belanger (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River)
Bendayan
Bittle
Blois
Brière
Carney
Carr
Casey
Chagger
Champagne
Chang
Chartrand
Chatel
Chen
Chenette
Chi
Church
Clark
Connors
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Dandurand
Danko
d'Entremont
Deschênes-Thériault
Desrochers
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Duclos
Duguid
Dzerowicz
Earle
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Erskine-Smith
Eyolfson
Fancy
Fanjoy
Fergus
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Fry
Fuhr
Gaheer
Gainey
Gasparro
Gerretsen
Gladu
Gould
Grant
Greaves
Guay
Guilbeault
Gull-Masty
Hajdu
Hanley
Harrison
Hepfner
Hirtle
Hodgson
Hogan
Housefather
Hussen
Iacono
Idlout
Jaczek
Jeneroux
Joly
Joseph
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Klassen
Koutrakis
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lamoureux
Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles)
Lapointe (Sudbury)
Lattanzio
Lauzon
Lavack
Lavoie
LeBlanc
Leitão
Lightbound
Long
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
Ma
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacDonald (Cardigan)
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Malette (Bay of Quinte)
Maloney
Martin
McGuinty
McKelvie
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McKnight
McLean (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke)
Ménard
Mendès
Michel
Miedema
Mingarelli
Morrissey
Myles
Naqvi
Nathan
Nguyen
Noormohamed
Ntumba
Oliphant
Olszewski
O'Rourke
Osborne
Petitpas Taylor
Powlowski
Ramsay
Rana
Robertson
Rochefort
Romanado
Royer
Sahota
Saini
Sarai
Sari
Sawatzky
Schiefke
Sgro
Sheehan
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Sodhi
Solomon
Sousa
St-Pierre
Sudds
Tesser Derksen
Thompson
Valdez
van Koeverden
Vandenbeld
Villeneuve
Watchorn
Weiler
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Zerucelli
Zuberi
Total: -- 170
NAYS
Members
AboultaifAlbas
Allison
Anderson
Anstey
Arnold
Au
Baber
Bailey
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Barsalou-Duval
Beaulieu
Bélanger (Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt)
Berthold
Bexte
Bezan
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Block
Bonin
Bonk
Borrelli
Boulerice
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Brunelle-Duceppe
Calkins
Caputo
Chambers
Champoux
Chong
Cobena
Cody
Cooper
Dalton
Dancho
Davidson
Davies (Vancouver Kingsway)
Davies (Niagara South)
Dawson
DeBellefeuille
Deltell
DeRidder
Deschênes
Diotte
Doherty
Dowdall
Duncan
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake)
Falk (Provencher)
Fortin
Gallant
Garon
Gaudreau
Gazan
Généreux
Genuis
Gill (Brampton West)
Gill (Calgary McKnight)
Gill (Windsor West)
Gill (Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan)
Gill (Abbotsford—South Langley)
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Groleau
Guglielmin
Gunn
Hallan
Hardy
Ho
Hoback
Holman
Jackson
Jansen
Johns
Kelly
Khanna
Kibble
Kirkland
Kmiec
Konanz
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kronis
Kuruc
Kusie
Kwan
Lake
Lantsman
Larouche
Lawrence
Lawton
Lefebvre
Lemire
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Lloyd
Lobb
Mahal
Majumdar
Malette (Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk)
Mantle
Martel
May
Mazier
McCauley
McKenzie
McLean (Calgary Centre)
McPherson
Melillo
Menegakis
Moore
Morin
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
Normandin
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Perron
Poilievre
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Reynolds
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ross
Rowe
Ruff
Savard-Tremblay
Scheer
Schmale
Seeback
Shipley
Simard
Small
Steinley
Ste-Marie
Stevenson
Strahl
Strauss
Stubbs
Thomas
Tochor
Tolmie
Uppal
Van Popta
Vien
Viersen
Vis
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Williamson
Zimmer
Total: -- 164
PAIRED
Members
AitchisonMiller
Plamondon
Provost
Thériault
Turnbull
Total: -- 6
Business of Supply
Opposition Motion—Cancellation of Federal Taxes on Gas and Diesel and the Clean Fuel Standard
[Business of Supply]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Speaker, I know that the crowd is in high anticipation for my remarks today on the opposition day motion. I will remind the hon. chair of the House of Commons agriculture committee that I look forward to his questions after my 20-minute remark here.
Mr. Speaker, you will know from my seven years as a parliamentarian that I thoroughly enjoy opposition day motions. Obviously I have had the privilege of sitting on this side of the House since 2019, but opposition day motions are an opportunity for opposition parties to put forward their policy prescriptions, their ideas on how to solve issues for Canadians, and rightfully so.
Today we are talking about affordability and the cost of living. I dare say we could not find a member of Parliament, at least I hope not, who does not believe that the work we have to do to support greater affordability for Canadians and to tackle the cost of living is an important public policy measure. Where we differ is on the prescriptions with which we go about doing that work.
I want to start by saying that, when I look at the opposition day motion, I humbly believe that the policy prescriptions the Conservative Party is putting forward are actually too narrow. The motion is looking too narrowly at the way in which we have to address affordability in this country. I represent a rural riding in Nova Scotia. I have a lot of constituents who do not have the same ability to rely on public transit, who have to drive longer distances and who, I know, watch the price at the pump. The motion would be a really important measure.
However, when I look at the opposition day motion, I see that it contains no recognition of why Canadians are dealing with higher costs at the pump right now. There is no recognition that the war the United States is waging against Iran and the impacts from what is happening at the Strait of Hormuz are having a major impact on the cost of living, the cost of fertilizer and the cost of fuel.
Furthermore, nowhere in the opposition day motion does the Conservative Party recognize that the government has already, for the next four months, suspended the federal excise tax on gasoline. That is 10¢ a litre. It is a small but important measure with respect to the ability to fill up one's gasoline tank, but it is a sizable investment. This is almost $3 billion that the Government of Canada has committed to supporting affordability across the country. As I have said in the House before, it is a time-limited measure, until just after Labour Day in September, and we think that this is fiscally prudent.
We hear the Conservatives talking out of one side of their mouth in the House of Commons about Canada's fiscal position, which I will cover in my remarks here today, but in the same breath they talk about spending even more on removing the GST on gas, which is for important public policy spending for social programs that matter to Canadians across the country. The Conservatives are playing a little on both sides. I guess that is the nature of opposition day and opposition parties, but at the end of the day, we think this is a reasonable measure that we have put in place for the next four months. There is no mention of it whatsoever.
I think about how we go about tackling the question, and we see affordability not only through the lens of the price at the pump. I would remind hon. members and Canadians at home that the first act of the Prime Minister and the government was to eliminate the consumer carbon price. That was 18¢ a litre. Yes, there were rebates tied to that.
Mr. Speaker, you will know that as a member of Parliament I was a strong advocate of making adjustments and was deeply supportive of the Prime Minister's work to eliminate the consumer carbon price, on the premise that there would be more ability to tackle climate and the environment and to reduce emissions. However, that policy was challenging for Canadians in rural areas who do not have the same ability, particularly with transportation, to change their policy.
The government has already reduced the cost of gasoline by 28¢ a litre in the past calendar year. Never do we hear the opposition recognize that point. Never do we hear the Conservatives talk about this as something that the government is moving, in their view, in the right direction. The government believes there is a slippery slope around the GST. The GST, as we mentioned, notwithstanding the spring economic—
Mr. Speaker, it is a point of order that I hope the hon. member who has the floor at the moment, will appreciate. There is far too much noise entering the chamber for me to give respectful attention to the hon. member from Kings—Hants.
I do not know if you could hear it from where you are, Mr. Speaker, and it is beginning to come down to a dull roar, but it was really difficult to hear the hon. member for Kings—Hants.
I thank the hon. member for her intervention, and she is quite right. In fact, as she was speaking, our distinguished Sergeant-at-Arms, Claude, went out to quiet down the noise in the exterior.
It is important for all of us as members, when we are in the exterior to this room, to ensure that our teams, friends and school groups that we take through keep the noise down out there, because it does impact what happens inside the chamber.
We will resume debate. The hon. member for Kings—Hants has the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for ensuring that we have proper decorum. I believe that my remarks here today have value, and I really look forward to engaging with my colleagues, particularly when we get to questions after the speech. Perhaps people were just excited to be able to see the parliamentary secretary and the hon. member for Kings—Hants, but we will never know.
What I was talking about was that we see affordability through more than just one lens. We have done the work to reduce the price of gasoline by, on average, 28¢ a litre across the country. It may vary slightly across different regional realities. At the same time, that is not the only lens through which Canadians would view affordability. We have put a series of programs in place that I want to highlight to Canadians, and I would urge my Conservative colleagues to consider the ways in which we can expand the definition of how we put money back into people's pockets to support their ability to raise a family, take care of themselves or stay in their home longer, perhaps. This gives me an opportunity to talk about those.
I am a proud son of a truck driver, and my mom is an administrative assistant back home in Kings—Hants. We come from pretty humble stock, as I say. We were a paycheque-to-paycheque kind of family. When some of my constituents ask about my trajectory, my involvement as a parliamentarian and why I chose the Liberal Party of Canada to stand for, I say that I was deeply proud of the work that the last prime minister was doing, particularly around the Canada child benefit.
Previously, former governments had put in a flat-based type of incentive. Whether someone had a lot of different incomes to their name or they were relatively low-income, they received largely the same type of benefit to help support raising their children. My parents did not have a type of program like the Canada child benefit. I was fortunate that I had grandparents at home who were helpful and supportive and who were allowed to get me involved in organized sport. However, I still remember going to the grocery store and there being times when my mom would run the credit card, or the debit card, I guess, in that day, and not be able to pay for the groceries.
I am proud to stand with a party that put social programs at the heart of our agenda, and with a new Prime Minister who has said and vowed that he will protect them. The Canada child benefit is one example. I was not here during the time it was implemented in the 42nd Parliament, but the Conservative Party voted against it, and the Conservatives do not talk about it as an important affordability measure that we can do to support everyday Canadians.
For 50 years, Canadians talked about the importance of a national child care policy, not only as a policy to help support young people in their earliest years in terms of early education but also, of course, as a mechanism to support working parents who may wish to go back to the workplace to contribute to the economic side of the equation and in terms of the economy, to be able to get back into their pursuits that matter from a career side.
The cost of child care had risen quite significantly. We came along, and under the last government and through a program that is continuing to be maintained under the current government, we supported a national child care policy with the objective of getting down to, on average, $10 a day. Never do we hear that mentioned in the Conservative opposition day motion. It is saving hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars a year for Canadian parents, and it is a key affordability measure.
The Conservatives have wavered about where exactly they stand on this policy, but again, it is affordability. Yes, we want to save on the gas tank in terms of being able to get people to and from places in rural or urban communities across this country, but so too do we want to have the programs that matter for our youth and for affordability in terms of being able to get parents back into the workplace. That is good affordability policy.
How about old age security increases and the guaranteed income supplement? A large proportion of the demographic in Kings—Hants is seniors. We have young, vibrant families and people of all ages, but we have a lot of seniors, especially in our rural communities.
I am proud to stand with a government that increased the old age security by 10% for seniors 75 years old and up, and also increased the guaranteed income supplement for some of our most vulnerable seniors to ensure that they have more ability to pay the bills and keep a roof over their head. That is something that is key affordability, and we do not see this level of policy prescription from the Conservative Party. We are not seeing this type of thoughtful policy.
I know it is the Conservatives' job to critique the government and hold the government to account. I completely understand and appreciate that function in our system, but it is also their job, I believe, to demonstrate that they have the ability to be a government-in-waiting. Fortunately, humbly and respectfully, I feel as though the way in which the member for Battle River—Crowfoot and the Conservatives have conducted themselves and purported themselves over the last year is actually helping and supporting our ability to say that we are the best choice for Canadians in that electoral context.
This is important because better policy prescriptions from the Conservative benches, or all benches for that matter, although I obviously am talking today about His Majesty's loyal opposition, allow us and force us, as the government, to be even better in how we are putting together the programs and policy initiatives that matter.
Last, I would say, is dental care and the groceries and essentials rebate. I have seniors in my riding who had not had the ability to get to a dentist in a considerable amount of time because, frankly, it would have cost more money than they could afford. That is an affordability measure that supports health care outcomes. It supports better access to care, not only in Kings—Hants but across this country. Never do we see many of the opposition politicians talking about what this means for their own constituents, even though these are, of course, national programs.
The groceries and essentials rebate is an enhanced GST. The government has reframed it as a groceries and essentials rebate, but it will be up to $1,800, depending on income, and support 12 million Canadians. Again, it is a targeted benefit, trying to support those who may need the help the most. We think that is important.
I do want to get to a point I have raised before. I had a coalition of agricultural groups from Saskatchewan in my office today: Sask Oilseeds, Sask Wheat and some canola representatives. We talked about the clean fuel standard.
There are a number of different ways in which we can reduce emissions and make sure that for our next generation in this country, we are being thoughtful about balancing economic growth with also putting some emphasis on driving innovation and reducing emissions. I honestly believe the clean fuel regulation is one of the best policies.
Members of the Conservative bench should be able to turn to it and say this is a policy that is using feedstock from farmers across this country, notably in prairie provinces, to reduce emissions. It has a minimal impact on the price of fuel, and it is helping to drive almost $30 a tonne's worth of canola benefit in the prairie provinces. In eastern Canada, it would be more the corn playing into ethanol blends. However, this is a policy that directly ties back to benefits on farms in rural communities and is driving innovation across this country. It has helped create Strathcona, a multi-billion-dollar investment in Alberta.
The opposition party continues to signal that their way to affordability is tearing down a program that actually drives industrial benefit in this country, that actually supports Canadian farmers and that notably supports investment in the rural prairie provinces. That shocks me. In fact, I would love to get in this country, beyond partisan consideration, an ability for the two major parties to agree that this is a policy that has merit. We may have slightly different interpretations of the best way to go about it, but instead they just want to tear this thing down. They want to tear down a policy that has driven billions of dollars of industrial investment, notably in western Canada, and they want to create policy uncertainty in this space. I find that shocking. I find it unfortunate. This will not solve affordability for Canadians.
I ask humbly, because the last platform of the Conservative Party, over a year ago, talked about tearing down the clean fuel standard and removing any form of industrial carbon pricing. They proposed to actually spend more taxpayers' dollars to get to a worse outcome on the environment. Conservatives need to come clean also with the policy prescriptions of the Conservative Party under the leadership of the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot. Their policy prescription, back in April 2025, was to actually spend more taxpayers' dollars, which ultimately has to come from Canadian pockets because we all pay taxes, to get to a worse environmental outcome.
That is the thing we have to litigate in the House and ask questions about. I have great respect for many of the humble members on the other side, including the hon. member for Perth—Wellington, a great guy. I encourage those members, whom I feel have the right view about how to conduct and drive that party forward, to have these honest and hard conversations about how we find a pathway and how we make sure the Conservative Party actually has some policy prescriptions in this space. Right now, at least on this one, on the clean fuel standard, it is actually benefiting individuals in Conservative ridings across the country. It is driving industrial benefit. It is creating those opportunities.
I want to take an opportunity to also talk about affordability through the lens of what we have done in the spring economic update, because, at its core, this motion is about affordability. I would point Canadians and hon. members to something I am proud of. I was the first in my family to get a post-secondary education. I obtained a law degree and a master's degree in public administration management. I am proud of that background. I also come from a background and a long history of individuals who did blue-collar work and worked in the skilled trades, and I am proud of that as well.
There is $6 billion in the spring economic update to support, which is our hope as a government, and help train 80,000 to 100,000 Red Seal skilled trade workers. We are going to need the pipefitters, the plumbers, the electricians and the carpenters. The government is looking to catalyze $1 trillion of investment in this country over the next five years. We have a goal of building major projects in a variety of different fields, whether in renewable energy, clean energy, nuclear, conventional energy or the mining activities that we are going to need to help drive our clean energy future.
We really want to see big projects and mid-tier projects get under way, but we also have to have the workforce and industrial capacity to deliver on that. We see that $6-billion investment as critical. That is supporting affordability for individuals who want to go through apprenticeship programs and have access to the means to do that, including an additional $400 to draw EI when individuals go back to that eight- to 10-week block as they continue to upgrade their education and build their skill set in the workplace.
I would point to the work we have done to maintain the augment in the Canada student grants. Acadia University is in my riding of Kings—Hants. I just had the opportunity to be at a convocation and saw a lot of bright, young individuals who are doing great things today and I know will continue to do great things in the community and across this country.
Education has become difficult and expensive. Part of that is tied to the ways in which some provincial governments have chosen to invest in post-secondary education. We want to make sure we are doing our part on the federal side, and we have increased the Canada student grant from $3,000 to $4,200. This was the type of programming that benefited me when I went through university and benefits lower-income students who may not have the means from their family to help pay for post-secondary education.
We have also reduced the amount of money on a weekly basis that students who benefited from the federal loan program have to pay back after they are done their education. That is affordability in action. That is smart public policy helping support Canadians across the country. Again, I want to see more of this from the opposition benches because we can be more nuanced than to just tear down environmental policy. Yes, gasoline prices are important, along with fuel and housing. All of that matters, but these are some of the other elements we can do on affordability.
Then there is the CPP rate reduction. It is small but meaningful. In the spring economic update, we announced the CPP rate reduction from 9.9% down to 9.5%. On average, this will save a worker with a T4 income around $70,000 just shy of $200 a year in savings. Again, I understand that may or may not move the needle for some who are dealing with a difficult situation, but I would humbly suggest what the Conservatives have put on offer today as a policy prescription would be less of an affordability measure than what we have just done with the CPP rate reduction. It is important not only for employees who pay into CPP but also for small businesses, which will benefit depending on the number of T4 employees they have.
There is one last thing I am going to talk about. Members know I have been a strong champion in the House of the issues of farmers and agriculture. I have talked at great length about the need to be more agile in our regulatory structure. I think of the work and conversations I have had with the Nova Scotia fruit growers and the many different commodities across Kings—Hants. They talked about the government being more agile in using the science and evidence of other jurisdictions to inform our regulatory model in Canada to ensure farmers have the tools they need to do their job. I would point to the Prime Minister's work, when he was in Australia, with Prime Minister Albanese in terms of the joint communiqué that those two leaders released around regulatory co-operation between agencies in Canada and Australia.
I would also point to the spring economic update. I give credit to the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Health, who have focused quite intensely on the ability to have an economic lens around the decisions of what was formerly called the Pest Management Regulatory Agency and also of the CFIA. I know this matters for affordability and competitiveness, and it will have a translation in terms of the price of food. These are examples where the government is reducing red tape and moving forward its goal to not only drive projects but make our landscape in the business community more competitive. As it relates to agriculture, this is great public policy.
I was told this morning that imitation is the greatest form of flattery. I know the hon. member for Bow River has put forward his own private member's bill that looks oddly similar to one I put together three years ago. I give him credit for that.
I am proud of the work we did on our platform back in April, when, respectfully, the Conservatives did not have a whole lot to say. We are going to continue to implement that platform on things like this. I am glad the Conservative Party is joining the conversation, but we are on it and we are going to keep doing it for Canadian farmers.
Before we go to questions and comments, I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, the time provided for Government Orders will be extended by 15 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member for Kings—Hants' thoughtful comments on this topic.
The fact of the matter is that the Liberals have created a cost of living crisis. Canadians are struggling from coast to coast. What we are putting forward, the elimination of all fuel taxes for the rest of the year, would save an average family over $1,200 this year. The member spoke a lot about some of the small changes the Liberals are now trying to make to fix the issues they caused in the first place with respect to affordability.
Would he not agree that allowing Canadian families to save an extra $1,200 this year would help alleviate that cost of living crisis?
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is one I would put in the camp of the good ones whom I have a lot of respect for.
I know he is framing this around $1,200. We are looking at a comprehensive view around affordability. We have already reduced gas taxes in Canada by 28¢ a litre. We believe that is important. The hon. member talked about, and I would reject the premise of his question, how the government has created a cost of living crisis. I would point to a lot of external events that are having impacts the government is seeking to respond to.
I would go back to the Canada child benefit that his party voted against. I would go back to national child care, which his party has not made clear they would maintain if they were in government. I would go back to old age security and the GIS that his party voted against. These are prime examples of affordability. We are going to do our bit on gasoline, but we also want to support other broader affordability. We do not think getting rid of the clean fuel standard, which supports farmers, is smart public policy.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to read today's Conservative motion and discuss what is missing from the motion.
I have a question for my colleague.
One of the things we in the Bloc Québécois have noticed is that this Conservative motion is missing something. In the spring of 2025, a vote-buying cheque was sent out to everyone in the provinces, except people in Quebec and British Columbia. While people in the rest of Canada were receiving cheques, Quebeckers were still paying interest on the debt incurred from those cheques and the carbon tax. We know that the sole purpose of the measure was to buy votes. People in Quebec did not pay that tax. In the end, Ottawa literally stole more than $814 million from Quebeckers through the Liberals' vote-buying cheques. The Conservatives have also left that out of today's motion.
In a context of significant financial needs and with the heavy burden of pressure and responsibility on Quebec, does my colleague believe that we are entitled to that $814 million?
Mr. Speaker, naturally I cannot explain the political views of the Conservative Party.
However, as far as our government is concerned, I am very proud of the work we are doing with the Government of Quebec, particularly on major projects like the Contrecœur project and the Nouveau Monde Graphite project, as well as the investments that are being made. There is some good news for Airbus and AirAsia, as well as a major investment and a partnership with an Asian company.
We are here for Quebeckers, together with the government of Premier Fréchette, always in the interests of Quebec and the entire country.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for yet another thoughtful speech. He pointed out that the Conservatives are really not giving the government credit for the many affordability measures we have put in place in the last year. It is a huge number, so I thought I would give him a chance to perhaps recount them.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say, first of all, on the record that I am proud of the work of the member for Sarnia—Lambton. Even when she sat on that side of the House, the opposition side of the House, I thought she litigated in a way that was respectful. She would engage respectfully. We are very happy to see her on the government benches helping to support the public policy of the government.
The way the member framed the question, at the end of the day, is what I am hoping to see from the Conservative Party. The reason and the rationale as to why we have seen four members of Parliament from the Conservative Party now say that they are more at home under the leadership of the Prime Minister and a government with that type of party and style are that we are offering thoughtful policy. The idea of just killing the clean fuel standard, which actually supports Saskatchewan, Manitoban and Albertan farmers, with no thoughtful alternative as to how to tackle those issues, is a type of politics that is not offering practical solutions for Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Kings—Hants discussing agriculture and how much it matters to him. Of course, I share his concerns.
He spent much of his speech talking about the clean fuel regulations. Can he explain what that consists of and how farmers in both of our regions will be able to take advantage of the benefits of this regulation?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague for being such a strong advocate in Parliament for farmers across the country and especially in Quebec.
With regard to the clean fuel regulations, there are a lot of options available to the affected parties to ensure compliance, and that includes the use of biofuels. There are farmers in western Canada and Quebec who grow corn and who have the opportunity to sell their crops to produce biofuels here in Canada.
The Conservatives want something else.
[English]
They are looking to kill that program, to cut that program, and it actually would have a direct correlation with the ability of farmers in Quebec and in western Canada to get a good market price. This is about supporting farmers at the farm gate using their feedstock to support cleaner fuels in the country. The comparison would be saying we should put lead back in our gasoline because it might make our gas slightly cheaper. That is, essentially, the Conservative proposition.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to catch the Speaker's eye and join debate again on this topic. The Liberals always talk about the price of gas and they try to blame foreign influences and foreign conflicts. Conservatives recognize that those foreign components have a cost associated with them. However, if we look at Canada compared with the United States, the price of fuel is 13% higher in Canada. That is very clearly a result of Liberal taxation policies. The Liberals would argue that it is not.
With all due respect to the hon. member, how would he justify that 13% difference in the gas price between Canada and the United States, if not for Liberal taxes?
Mr. Speaker, what I would say is that this differential existed when Stephen Harper was the prime minister as well. There are a number of factors in the way in which Canadians create the revenue that supports social programs. At the end of the day, what the hon. member is suggesting in today's motion is to take away the funding of GST that supports broad government programs in that member's riding and all across this country.
I have a question for the hon. member, and maybe he can take a thoughtful dynamic in his own party. Essentially, the Conservative position on eliminating the clean fuel standard would be like suggesting that we should put lead back in gasoline because it would actually make fuel slightly cheaper.
The members laugh, but I am sure that if we looked at it, if we did not actually take lead out of the gasoline process, which Brian Mulroney did in the 1980s, it would make gas slightly cheaper. That is the same principle that the Conservatives are pushing today.
Why not just go all the way and say that we should put lead back in gasoline instead of supporting Canadian farmers, clean energy solutions and industrial investment across the country?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, we have seen this in the past. What do oil companies do when the government cuts fuel taxes? They boost their refining margins.
We need to put a mechanism in place if we want to have a direct impact on the price of oil. The best mechanism would perhaps be some type of price management system to ensure that the gluttonous oil and gas sectors do not take advantage of the fact that the government is giving the public tax credits or tax cuts to unduly increase their refining margins. It seems like that would be somewhat more productive than what my Conservative colleagues are proposing today.
I look forward to hearing my colleague's thoughts on that.
Mr. Speaker, that is a difficult question, and one that is difficult to answer in 20 seconds.
With regard to price regulation, there are definitely certain regulators in the Atlantic provinces, in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada. I believe that we actually do have a model, and it is up to the provinces and territories to determine the necessary retail price.
[English]
Committees of the House
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:
That, in relation to the Canadian Council of Public Accounts Committees and Canadian Council of Legislative Auditors Annual Conference, six members of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts be authorized to travel to Halifax, Nova Scotia, in the summer of 2026, during an adjournment period, and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.
Business of Supply
Opposition Motion—Cancellation of Federal Taxes on Gas and Diesel and the Clean Fuel Standard
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak today on our opposition day motion. I do want to say at the outset that I will be splitting my time with the member for Kitchener Centre.
Why are we speaking on this today? I listened with interest to the government members' speeches, which touched very little on the realities that Canadians are facing in my riding of Fundy Royal, in my province of New Brunswick and throughout the country. The results of over 10 years of Liberal governance are seen in the stats today: delinquencies are up, bankruptcies are up, crime is up and food bank use is up. The percentage of people's income going toward just paying tax, at a time when they can least afford it, is up, with 32% more of Canadians' dollars going toward taxes than just 10 years ago.
Unfortunately, rather than taking accountability for this situation and proposing changes that would actually help the individuals who are struggling, hard-working Canadian taxpayers, we see avoidance of the issue.
Our proposal recognizes a few things. The government members love to say that this is all due to international things out of their control. We have all heard the excuse that the dog ate my homework; this is the government equivalent of that. It is someone else's fault that they are not doing the job they are supposed to be doing. The job the government should be doing is making life as safe and affordable as possible for hard-working Canadians.
Gas prices are 13% higher in Canada than they are in the United States. That equates to 22¢ Canadian more on average per litre. Gas costs now 50¢ more per litre than when global oil prices were at the exact same level in 2014. One might ask how this is possible. It is because of the greed of government, a government that knows no bounds when it comes to greed. When people are down and suffering, the government is raking in record windfalls directly off the backs of hard-working Canadians.
I mentioned food bank use being at a high. In my home province of New Brunswick, the results are staggering, with a 55% increase in food bank use in just one year. There are 50,000 visits per month by New Brunswickers to our community food banks. We have great food banks. I am thinking, in my riding of Fundy Royal, of the Hampton food bank, and the work it does every day, every week, providing help to neighbours and those who are in need. However, what I hear from many volunteers is that they are stretched to the limit. They have never seen demand at the level that it is.
We must ask ourselves what we can do to help out. One of the ways Conservatives are saying we can help out, to the tune of $1,200 per year, is to take the taxes off gasoline for this year. Gasoline and diesel is at a record high, so we are saying to take the taxes off fuel. What are those taxes we are talking about? We are talking about the clean fuel standard, the GST, the industrial carbon tax and the fuel excise tax. I have to mention, illustrating the greed of government, that not only are these taxes on the cost of gasoline, which keeps going up and up, but these taxes are also on each other. We tax the tax in this country, so when one tax goes up and the price of gas goes up, the tax on that tax goes up. This results in Canadians being gouged at the pump when they can least afford it.
Our proposal is one that would provide savings to Canadian families who are doing such things as driving their kids to a hockey game, driving their kids to baseball practice, driving to work, trying to get back and forth to visit family or maybe taking a vacation this summer where they get in their vehicle and explore someplace in New Brunswick, such as the Hopewell Rocks or the Fundy Trail, or someplace throughout Canada.
At every turn, this government is making life more expensive for those families who are just trying to provide a livelihood for their family and provide those basic necessities. We are not talking about luxuries any more. Many Canadians have long given up on luxuries. On the decisions that families and seniors are now facing, I hear often from seniors in my riding who are struggling with the cost of rent, fuel and food. All of these things have increased, not one or the other, but all of them have increased dramatically under this government.
Pay raises have not kept pace. Seniors' benefits have not kept pace. Each year, individuals are falling further and further behind. This is the result of a decade of Liberal credit card budgets, and of waste and mismanagement.
This motion today calls on the government to offer Canadians immediate relief by ending all federal taxes on gas and diesel for the rest of the year, including the GST, and permanently scrap the clean fuel standard.
The GST is a special case in this situation, because every time fuel increases, even by 1¢, the share that this government greedily scoops up from GST revenue also goes up. When the price of fuel increases by 10¢, the GST on that fuel also increases. This is an unbudgeted windfall for the government due to skyrocketing prices that it is raking in on the backs of everyday Canadians.
I would love to call it a half-measure, and a half-measure would have been pretty good, but this is not even a one-third measure of what should be done to help Canadians with the cost of fuel this year. For the entire year, the Canadian hidden industrial carbon tax, the clean fuel standard, the GST, all fuel taxes, should be removed from the price of fuel.
Members only need to go to their local gas station to fill up to hear the talk around the pumps about how difficult it is to fill up that tank. That tank of gas means a livelihood for some people. It means getting to a loved one this summer when people go to visit family. It means getting kids to sports. It is quite heartbreaking to see parents making that difficult decision of not being able to do some of the things they love to do, some of those family traditions, all because of government greed.
We are not asking the government today to fix every problem. I already mentioned that delinquencies are up, bankruptcies are up, food bank use is up and crime has skyrocketed over a decade of Liberal governance. What we are asking the Liberals to do today is to take this one meaningful step in this one area. We are calling on them, for today, to remove all these taxes on fuel and to stop blaming everyone else.
We have demonstrated today, and I heard some of my Conservative colleagues speak about this, why the cost of fuel in Canada is more than in the U.S. It comes down to the taxes we pay. While this government and its members, and I have seen them, are pointing their finger everywhere except at themselves, the blame lies with the government as to why Canadians today, when they fill up their vehicle, are being gouged.
I would ask all hon. members in the House to think about their constituents back home, think about the people they represent, and ask them, if they were standing at the pump talking to constituents as they filled up their van, pickup or their car, if they thought we should be gouging them right now by charging ever-increasing amounts of GST and other taxes on fuel, or if they thought we should help them out. I think they would listen to their constituents and remove the taxes from fuel.
Mr. Speaker, one thing that I would agree with my colleague on is the issue of affordability. Over the past two weeks, I have been in my riding and have met with many of my constituents, and affordability continues to be an area of concern.
What does the member say to his constituents when he tells them that he voted against the dental care program, the child care program and many of the affordability measures that we have brought forward? I wonder if he could just elaborate on the response that he gives them, because this side of the House has brought forward many measures to make sure that life is more affordable for Canadians. Again, that continues to be our number one priority, and that is not the message I seem to get from the other side of the House.
Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the numbers do not lie. If the government was doing a good job on affordability, I would be the first to say, “Hey, you guys are doing a great job.” Unfortunately, the numbers and constituents, if she were to talk to her constituents the way I am talking to my constituents, say we are living in an affordability crisis. The cost of food, groceries, fuel and housing is higher after a decade of Liberal governing.
I am very proud to speak to my constituents and say that I will fight tooth and nail for more affordability in our communities, our province and our country.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I do not entirely agree with my colleague.
In fact, I have the same concern about budgetary matters. It is true that people are struggling to make ends meet. However, the problem is that cutting gas taxes and increasing oil production are counterproductive. This is simply putting things off. The planet will eventually have to be cleaned up because it will no longer be livable.
Many countries around the world have gone green and are powered by electric, wind and solar energy, and yet our Conservative colleagues are calling for a return to oil. Unfortunately, the government seems to agree with them, since gas taxes were recently scrapped.
I will therefore ask a question, and I would like my colleague to share his thoughts on this. Is it not counterproductive to boost oil production and cut taxes? Should we not instead be investing in a transition to clean energy?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, this is about providing Canadians, at a time when we are in an affordability crisis, a measure of relief. It is not total relief, but it is a measure of relief.
As my colleague would know, just one part of this is the GST. The GST is on the cost of fuel and on top of other taxes. Every time the cost of fuel increases, punishing Canadians, the government says, “We know this fuel increase is hurting Canadians, but what we're going to do, rather than lend a helping hand, is take even more for ourselves.” That is exactly what is happening, and that is what we are calling for an end to: an end to the GST on this very expensive fuel for this year, to provide Canadians up to $1,200 for a family of four in savings, and an end to all taxes on fuel for this year.
Mr. Speaker, I have spoken at length, almost ad nauseam, with young adults in Essex. Basically, it has come to a point now where they are saying it is not even worth trying to save for a home.
What I really found interesting was when the member talked about what we would say to the person at the gas pump. That really resonated with me.
What is the message? What is the proper message? What do I send back to these young adults who are just trying to get ahead in Canada?
Mr. Speaker, like my hon. colleague in his riding, in my riding we also hear from young people who have given up hope on the Canadian dream, which is to own their own home, to raise a family here in Canada, to have a good job, to be able to save up some money and, heaven forbid, to be able to fill their car with gas.
What I would say is that help is on its way. Conservatives will keep fighting for affordability and fighting for those families. We are calling on the government today to adopt our motion to end the tax on fuel for this year.
Mr. Speaker, today we are talking about something in our country that should not even have to be debated: whether Canadians deserve a break. People in this country who wake up early, work hard, pay their taxes, raise their kids, care for loved ones, live on fixed incomes or navigate life with a disability do everything the way they are told, and they deserve a break. This is what our motion is about today. It is about cancelling the federal taxes on gas and diesel and scrapping the clean fuel standard that continues to drive up costs across this economy.
Frankly, we all leave this place and talk to our friends, neighbours and constituents, and we hear it in conversations in our offices, in the grocery store lineups and at community events: the reality that life is unaffordable. A couple who both work full-time are wondering how they are going to afford a home. A senior is cutting back on visiting grandkids because the cost of filling the tank is getting to be a bit too much. A single parent is deciding which bill can wait another few days. It is the farmers, truckers, tradespeople and small business owners who are watching their budgets erode month after month while being overtaxed and stretched thinner every day. People are tired. They are doing everything they can, and it still feels like they are falling behind. They are why this motion matters so much.
Over the past few years, Canadians have watched as the price of absolutely everything has gone up: groceries, utilities, rent, mortgage payments, insurance, transportation and everyday necessities. While the government will often talk about how it is saving Canadians money, and even the Prime Minister stood up and said that affordability has not been better in a decade, the reality is that Canadians are looking at their bank accounts and wondering how much more they can stretch.
When we increase the cost of fuel, it increases the cost of everything. It is passed to the consumer. Every single thing Canadians buy becomes more expensive, and yet the government continues to insist that adding more costs somehow makes life more affordable. It does not even make sense. For many Canadians, gas prices are not just a number on a sign that they drive by. They shape almost every financial decision people make during the month.
People feel it when it costs them more to fill the tank. That is money that no longer goes toward groceries, savings, bills or their kids' activities. For families already stretched thin, there is zero room in the budget to absorb these increases. There are people planning errands around fuel usage, driving less to visit family and thinking twice before accepting extra shifts because of the commute. The impact ripples through our entire economy. Everyone pays more.
One of the things I hear most often in my riding is that people no longer feel like hard work gets them ahead. This is devastating to hear in a country like Canada. We have young couples delaying having kids because they cannot afford a home. We have parents worried that their kids will never be able to get a start on their own or build a life for themselves. We have people working overtime, second jobs and side jobs and yet still relying on credit cards just to get by. More and more, we are hearing about households with dual incomes that are barely staying afloat because the cost of living has risen faster than the ability to keep up.
I recently heard from Sayed in my riding who told me that rent, groceries and utilities have become nearly impossible to manage. They said they are under enormous stress to find safe and affordable housing while everyday expenses keep climbing faster and faster, and their income is not keeping pace.
Also, Nathalie shared that they are already behind on rent and struggling to afford basics like food and phone bills at the same time, let alone this gas increase. They told me their bank account balance is at zero. They are beyond negative, and they cannot afford this price increase in gas, and they are terrified of losing their housing altogether.
Adis, a father of five who lives in a two-bedroom apartment with his family, wants to move into a three-bedroom apartment, but the rental prices have become incredibly unaffordable, and year after year, the increases keep pushing them further and further behind.
These are not one-off stories. We are hearing more and more of the same stories across our country from everyday Canadians. Even food insecurity is a national crisis. It is at record highs. There are families with children using food banks, and seniors using food banks. People who never imagined they would need help are now standing in line because they simply cannot keep up. Let us think about that.
In one of the wealthiest countries in the world, people with jobs are struggling to feed themselves. To be a bit nostalgic for a second, only 11 years ago we had the wealthiest middle class in the G7. Look at what has happened with the Liberal government. Those same people are now in food bank lineups.
When fuel prices rise, grocery prices rise. Farmers need fuel to operate their equipment. Truckers need fuel to transport goods. Stores need fuel to supply their chains. These costs do not disappear. They get passed on to the consumer. People drive their kids from Kitchener to Cambridge for sports and activities, and that is putting a strain on families. People drive because they have to. Farmers drive because they have to. Parents drive their kids to school, sports and appointments because they have to. They are not the problem.
When the government increases tax on fuel, Canadians see it at the checkout counter when they buy milk, bread, produce or even diapers. The most frustrating part is that Canadians say they are feeling completely ignored when they try to point out the unaffordability. Disabled people already live below the poverty line, which is a discussion for another day. How can the government keep punishing people financially? There is something so fundamentally unfair about asking Canadians to make it work when so many are already stretched to the breaking point.
The government often talks about supposed rebates, but the majority of Canadians do not see them. All Canadians want is breathing room. They do not want handouts. They just want breathing room and to get ahead. They want to feel like they make responsible choices and can build a decent life for themselves and their families. That should not be too much to ask. Canadians do not feel that things are affordable. They feel stressed when they are walking down the grocery aisle or paying their bills. It is not enough for them to have to cut back on groceries or cancel excursions for their kids. They are still not making ends meet. This is not a choice they should even have to make.
Canadians do not need more talking points. They need relief. This motion offers a very straightforward step toward that relief. The motion would cancel all federal taxes on gas and diesel, scrap the clean fuel standard and stop making everyday life more expensive.
We should never become so disconnected from reality that we forget who we are here to serve. We are here to serve the people who sent us here: the people balancing budgets at the kitchen table, trying to keep their small business alive and skipping meals so their kids can eat first. We have the opportunity to show Canadians that someone is listening to them.
Will the government support our motion and show Canadians that it is listening?
Mr. Speaker, Conservative after Conservative has stood up and talked about the issue of affordability. We have brought forward affordability measures, such as the groceries and essentials benefit for Canadians, which is coming out in June. There will be substantial amounts of money for the 11 million Canadians who will benefit by it.
The Prime Minister committed to and got rid of the carbon tax on gasoline. There was the fuel excise tax we took off the price of gas effective April 1 and going to Labour Day weekend. There is the national school food program we have instituted in schools. The Conservatives always vote against these things.
Can the member explain why, if the Conservatives care about affordability, they vote against Liberal initiatives to—
Mr. Speaker, I just want to address the misinformation in the member's question. We voted in favour of eliminating the tax for everyday Canadians. There actually was no vote to eliminate the carbon tax. It was just done. We did not have the opportunity to vote on that.
I would respectfully ask that if I am going to be asked a question, the question be honest, accurate and true for me to answer.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, today once again, we see the Conservatives drawing conclusions.
I just returned from a constituency week. Naturally, people talked to me about inflation, about increasing food bank use and about increasing homelessness. They talked to me about all of that.
However, what we are debating today would not help any of these people. In fact, $2.4 billion was lost as a result of the Liberals' decision to suspend the excise tax until September. This measure only resulted in $59 for the lowest-income households. In the end, that is not what they need. They need more meaningful solutions.
What does my colleague think? Where will that money come from in the end? With today's motion, the Conservative Party wants to increase the deficit without explaining where it will make cuts. Economically, that does not add up.
However, if she wants to talk about other ways to help people in need and increase the income of seniors who are living on the streets, we are willing to discuss that.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I would thank my hon. colleague for the question, but I do not think there was one in there.
Let me respond. I agree completely that affordability is an actual crisis right now. We are not saying that this measure is going to fix everything. We are saying that it is a start. It is something that can be done for Canadians to tell them that we are listening to them and that we know they are struggling. It is something we can do.
I will also agree with the statement, though, that the current measure the Liberals have taken is only a half measure. It is not really going to do anything to significantly impact Canadians, their chequebooks and their pockets.
Mr. Speaker, as my colleague and friend noted in her speech, the prices of groceries and many everyday essentials are up. There is an impact from gas taxes on that.
Let me ask the question. A year ago in the election, the Prime Minister said that he should be judged on the price of groceries in the grocery aisle. It is now a year and a month later. How is he doing?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I find this very interesting.
My colleague is a Conservative MP from an urban area. I would like to hear her views on the impact of potentially repealing the clean fuel regulations, which have generated significant revenue for farmers, including those on the Prairies, particularly canola growers. This involves processing that happens in Canada.
Why would we want to take this revenue away from our farmers?
[English]
[Translation]
Message from the Senate
I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed the following bills to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-5, an act respecting the interoperability of health information technology and to prohibit data blocking by health information technology vendors, and Bill S-214, an act to amend the Special Economic Measures Act with regard to the disposal of foreign state assets.
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 forYork—Durham, The Economy; the hon. member for Brandon—Souris, The Economy; the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, The Economy.
[English]
Business of Supply
Opposition Motion—Cancellation of Federal Taxes on Gas and Diesel and the Clean Fuel Standard
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to have the opportunity to rise in debate today on the opposition day motion, and I have the great honour of splitting my time with the terrific MP for Vancouver Kingsway.
I want to start by saying that this is a thoughtful motion. I will be voting against it, but I do think it is important to have Canadians use this moment as a teachable moment. There is no question that the price of fossil fuels, particularly gasoline, throughout North America and around the world, has felt the shock created by Donald Trump's and Benjamin Netanyahu's illegally bombing Iran. It had an immediate effect on gas prices around the world. Yes, it is worth Canadians asking, given that has had a global impact, how come gas prices are higher in Canada. As such, I want to dig into that a bit.
I want to state right off the top, and we often fail to say this, even as Greens, but we need to say it, that the cheapest way to move people around in vehicles and the cheapest way to power those vehicles is to move 100% off fossil fuels. I want to say very quickly, before friends anywhere get angry with me, that this is not a useful choice if it is not there for them.
Let me give a contrast. In Germany, pensioners can hang solar panels off their balconies in urban places, and they have the capacity to safely plug their home appliances into the solar panel, just as friends of mine in the Cobble Hill area in British Columbia have solar panels on their roof and plug their car into their house. This means that the source of energy is abundant, renewable and essentially free once everything is in place.
These are larger discussions to have, but the question that I want to focus on now is the one before us from the Conservative Party: Why is there a price differential, even with the international volatility caused by war and mistakes? To say they were mistakes is to be charitable toward the U.S. White House. To say they were monstrously reckless decisions is more accurate.
Why is there this price differential? To get into this, I have to drill down a bit, no pun intended. When the Green Party issued our climate policy in 2019, called “Mission: Possible”, we made the commitment, which I think very few Canadians ever heard of, that we should, as we ramp down on our dependence on fossil fuels in Canada, only use Canadian fossil fuels in this country and absolutely bring imports from other countries to zero.
There is a logic to this, but let us look at the current situation. One of the reasons that fossil fuel prices are higher for Canadians who want to put gas in the tank is that, of the fossil fuels we produce in this country, about 75% of them are exported, and the bulk of that by far, 75% of what we export, or about 60% of total, is exported unprocessed raw. I became more aware of this back in 2016. I was an intervenor in the National Energy Board review of what was then the Kinder Morgan pipeline project, and the largest union representing workers in the oil sands, Unifor, was also intervening against the pipeline project.
Why would the largest union in the oil sands be against the pipeline project? They pointed out the obvious. The pipeline was then idiotically bought and built by Canada at a cost of $36 billion of public funds. However, the pipeline project was then and is now, as it operates, transporting something that is a solid, low-value form of fossil fuel called bitumen, which is diluted with enough fossil fuel condensates that it can flow through a pipeline. Unprocessed raw gets shipped out of Canada to go to refineries in other countries to be upgraded to synthetic crude, and from there it goes to refineries elsewhere.
Focusing on our refinery capacity, in the 1970s, Canada had about 40 refineries. One of the things that the Unifor brief pointed out to the National Energy Board is that we have lost a huge amount of our refinery capacity. It is now down to, in 2026, about 14 to 16 refineries, depending on how one counts. That is down from 40 refineries.
Our capacity to take a domestic product, refine it and use it here has been substantially structurally reduced. Unifor told the National Energy Board that it did not want an export pipeline built because it felt it would inevitably lead to the closure of refineries in the Lower Mainland of B.C. This is because the product that those refineries might want to refine was moving offshore before there was any value added, as is the case whenever we ship out raw materials. We do this a lot in Canada with shippers, hewers of wood and drawers of water. Because we ship out raw logs, the sawmills in Canada cannot operate at full capacity. We ship out raw bitumen, and people could have had jobs in refineries if we had kept up the capacity in our refineries and if we had built upgraders to go with the refineries so that Canadian bitumen could be used in Canadian gas tanks without being shipped out of the country first.
This is a big problem. This affects the price of gas in Canada. We are the fifth largest producer of fossil fuels in the world. We export most of it by far, and we import product from other countries. That is quite astonishing. Why do we do that? Well, I think it is still the mindset of hewers of wood and drawers of water, and because we are failing to listen to smart folks in the refinery business and in the workforces who have been looking at why we do not want to have value added to our refining capacity and be able to say that what we are using in our tanks, as long as we are still using the internal combustion engine, comes from Canada, because this is a Canadian product.
It does make it more expensive, as we can imagine, to ship it out of the port in Burnaby, ship it overseas, and, in some cases, down to refineries in Washington state, only for British Columbians to buy it back from refineries in Washington state. Despite the fact that we have been told some fairy tales over the years, like if we had a pipeline from British Columbia to eastern Canada or from Alberta to New Brunswick, the Irving refinery in New Brunswick could process that and it would be good and we could we use it domestically, the reality is that the Irving refinery is still the only refinery in Canada that imports Saudi oil. The Irving refinery does not have an upgrader to take solid bitumen, turn it into synthetic crude and then refine it.
These are some of the basic structural impediments to Canada getting maximum workforce benefit and maximum domestic economic benefit. We could get more benefit and more jobs in Canada while reducing our overall production of fossil fuels, which we primarily export to the United States. It is still, on the order, about 90% of our exports that go to the United States.
One little curious point people might find amusing as a factoid, but that is rather despairing, is the idea that there was some great benefit coming to Canada by getting our bitumen to tidewater. In fact, a great deal of what gets shipped out of the port of Burnaby towards China, because it is still a solid thing, is a lot like tar. A lot of what we ship to China gets used to pave roads because it is a lot like tar. If we wanted to have a domestic industry that would improve our productivity measurements as an economy, we would not be shipping out raw product. Every time we increase the relative proportion of value-added product before shipping it out of the country, we improve our overall economic indicators.
To that, I will only add that I am concerned about getting rid of the excise tax on our fuel, which we are doing with the spring economic statement, Bill C-30. Stephen Harper's made the wise decision that the excise gas tax would be forever dedicated to public transit in urban areas. The Liberals have now ditched that plan and are giving a short-term, and I think insufficient, tax break to Canadians because it ends on Labour Day.
For all of that, the one sure thing is that nothing is going to hurt our economy like the climate crisis, which is barrelling towards us. Nothing is going to damage our economy as much as the government is currently doing by slashing carbon and climate control programs in order to boost what it thinks will turn into economic growth.
Mr. Speaker, I must admit I am a bit surprised by the leader of the Green Party sending possible mixed messages for the first time on the issue, so I would like to get some clarification. When she talks about Canada becoming self-sufficient in terms of oil and gas supply, I am sure she is aware that one of the issues is that Atlantic Canada imports a lot of oil because we do not have the pipeline infrastructure to take the product from the Prairies into Atlantic Canada.
Is she trying to imply that maybe that is something we should be considering? How do we resolve the issue that she has highlighted, in terms of Canada becoming more self-sufficient in consuming the gas we actually produce? To that end, does she also support increasing refining capacity in Canada?
Mr. Speaker, to the second part of the question, there is no hesitation on my part, because we have, for years, been calling for improving our refinery capacity in Canada. There was a Canadian entrepreneur in British Columbia who wanted to do that to reduce the risk of bitumen on our coastlines. However, let me just point out that eastern Canada has something called Hibernia. The mobile oil platforms there produce a much higher-value crude than bitumen, and it is all shipped to the States.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I think that my colleague and I are pretty much on the same wavelength when it comes to a number of things.
However, as far as decisions by the government are concerned, we saw that the former Liberal government was steering us toward a green transition. There were investments in the auto industry. Then the government announced that it would be scrapping all of that. Instead, it will start subsidizing the oil industry again, which I believe to be counterproductive and expensive for everyone.
On top of that, the government decided to reimburse all Canadians for the carbon tax they paid in the previous year, except in Quebec. Quebeckers are owed $814 million that the government refuses to repay. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.
Quebec is in a rather unusual situation. We invested in the transition to green energy, and now we are being told to forget all that and go back to oil. Not only that, Quebeckers are not getting back the $814 million taken from their pockets to compensate other Canadians. What is my colleague's take on that from an economic perspective?
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Liberals' policies lack common sense. There is this belief that it is a good idea to cut and eliminate almost every policy aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, the government is saying yes to electric vehicles. However, at the last minute, the government changes its plans and ends up saying that it does not want them at all. In the end, the government says they may want some. The government also eliminated energy efficiency programs for homes in Canada. It makes no sense.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands' speech. I thought it was very thoughtful. I agree with many of the things she highlighted, one of which was this. If I am not mistaken, I believe she pointed out, quite rightly, that what the Liberals have proposed in terms of removing gas taxes until Labour Day is “insufficient” savings. I believe that was the word the member used. I would agree with that. That is why our Conservative team is bringing forward this motion today to remove all gas taxes for the rest of the year, which would save an average family over $1,200 for the year.
I am sure the member would agree that Canadians are struggling with the cost of living. That being said, she has acknowledged that she will not be supporting this motion. I am curious if she can explain why she will not be supporting this motion, given her comments that what the Liberals have brought forward is insufficient. We are planning to go further to offer Canadians more savings.
Mr. Speaker, I do think it is important to remember that, while it is rare that on any climate issue one would invoke Stephen Harper's legacy, the current government's climate policies are so bad that they do bring to mind things that Stephen Harper did better, such as deciding that the gas tax should be permanent and should be used to fund urban transit. I think there is a bit of bait and switch when they say they are going to relieve this tax.
I think what the Liberals are doing is fuelling, no pun intended, the wrong message, as if the narrative is correct that somehow it is the extra taxes from government that are making gas more expensive. It is a factor, but a much larger factor is that we have structured our economy and our use of fossil fuels around shipping out low-value exports and not creating the jobs here.
Part of the Green Party policy, just to make it clear for my friends across the way, is to pick a date on which we will transition off fossil fuels and only use Canadian fossil fuels till that date.
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to follow my hon. colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands. I will be picking up some of the same themes she articulated so well.
There are a few things about this motion that I want to agree with and thank my Conservative colleagues for pointing out. First of all, across this country, people are being stretched to the breaking point, and this motion is predicated on that acknowledgement. The cost of essentials, from groceries to rent and energy, continues to soar. Half of Canadians are living paycheque to paycheque. That is a fact I mention often in this place because I think it is profound. I want to emphasize that. Half of Canadians are two paycheques away from economic disaster. One in four parents is cutting back on food or skipping meals to feed their children. This is in a G7 country that my colleagues on the Liberal side of the House call an energy superpower, where 25% of parents cannot get enough food to eat because they are worried about their children.
I also agree very much that Canadians need immediate relief from this affordability crisis. I further agree that after 11 years of Liberal government, at a certain point, we have to ask ourselves who is responsible for the current situation and who is accountable for the policy decisions that have gotten us in this position. They did not just happen. It is not only a cause of external factors, but a result of 11 years of misguided policies and lack of action by the Liberal government on the very basic foundations of affordability, which have caused so many Canadians to be struggling today.
However, I do think that the Conservatives are proposing an ineffective measure that amounts to a corporate giveaway, with no guarantee that any savings will actually reach consumers, which also sets back environmental progress even more than is already the case under the current Liberal government.
Conservatives want Canadians to believe that this is simply about taxes and regulation, but the evidence tells a different story. Gas prices are not set principally by tax levels or even basic supply and demand. They are shaped by global oil markets, financial speculation and the pricing power of a highly concentrated industry. The gasoline that Canadians buy today was refined weeks ago from oil produced months ago, often at much lower costs, yet prices at the pump can rise quickly in response to global events and market expectations, long before any real change in physical supply or production costs occurs.
Canada produces far more oil than we consume. Three-quarters of our production is exported. Of the modest volumes imported into eastern Canada, almost none comes through the Persian Gulf. In other words, there is no energy supply shock in Canada. The cost of producing and refining gas has not changed at all in this country, yet Canadian consumers are being hammered at the pumps. That is because a significant driver of price movement is speculation in global oil markets. The truth is that traders respond to geopolitical developments and anticipated risks by bidding up prices based on expectations of disruption. These financial signals can move prices at the pump even when nothing at all has been changed in the real supply of fuel.
This is also why the Conservatives' call to simply get out of the way and further deregulate the sector would not stabilize prices. In fact, it would do the opposite. It would tie Canadians even more directly to volatile global markets, where speculation and shocks are immediately passed through to consumers, rather than strengthening any insulation from them. Tax cuts and deregulation will never solve this problem. If underlying market prices are being driven up by speculation and price gouging, removing taxes does not stop that dynamic. It simply reduces government revenue while leaving the same pricing system in place. Savings will not be passed on to consumers; rather, they will be absorbed into higher corporate profit margins.
What I have just said is not just theory. We have already seen this approach fail to lower prices for Canadians in real time recently. The Liberal government temporarily suspended the fuel excise tax on April 20 at a cost of approximately $2.4 billion, claiming it would reduce gas prices by 10¢ per litre. Instead, prices have continued to increase while oil and gas giants continue to post record profits.
When the suspension came into effect, the national average gas price was 169.1¢ per litre. Today, the national average price is $1.83 per litre. In Vancouver, where I live, a litre of gas is now routinely over two dollars. The result of the Liberals' removing the excise tax since April 20 is that, so far, prices have gone up. Not a single consumer in Canada has benefited from the Liberal move, and this was predicted by New Democrats at the very time this excise tax reduction was put in place.
This experience demonstrates a key point. When underlying market prices are driven by speculation and price gouging, tax cuts do not reliably translate into lower prices at the pump. That is one of the key flaws of the Conservative motion here today, which seeks to do that even more so.
Instead, the benefit of the reduction in excise tax can be absorbed into higher margins in an already highly profitable sector. I have no doubt that oil companies have already absorbed at least a portion of that 10¢ excise tax reduction. Certainly, there was nothing in the Liberals' measure to stop them from doing that. As I have said already, the proof is in the pudding. Prices have gone up since the Liberals said their measure would take prices down.
While Canadians struggle with affordability, oil and gas giants are positioned to capture massive windfall gains. We are going to see some $90 billion in profits for Canadian oil companies this year. They were slated to make $30 billion in profits this year but are now expecting an additional $60 billion in profits as a result of the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. Yet, Conservatives want to hand these same corporations another tax break with no mechanism that is guaranteed to ensure that consumers benefit, and the Liberals consistently refuse to bring in a windfall profits tax on the oil and gas companies and use those funds to provide real relief to Canadians who desperately need it.
There is no question that Canadians need relief. The real question is this: How do we make sure that relief reaches working people instead of padding corporate balance sheets? Rather than writing a blank cheque to oil giants, the government should look at measures to cap prices at the pump, crack down on profiteering and ensure that savings are actually passed on to consumers.
Other countries, and Canada itself in past moments of crisis, have recognized this basic principle. When extraordinary windfall profits are generated by crisis-driven price spikes, the public has a right to recoup a fair share of those gains rather than allowing them to be fully privatized. They have a right to expect that their governments will protect them from what is called “war profiteering”.
We have done this before. During both world wars, the Canadian government used excess profit measures to ensure that wartime windfalls were redirected toward the public good and the national effort, not captured by private interests. More recently, during the COVID pandemic, the Liberal government itself imposed an excise profits tax on major banks, recognizing that extraordinary gains during a national crisis should not simply remain as private profit. New Democrats believe, respectfully, that the same principle applies today in the oil and gas sector.
I will pause for a moment to say that the motion also calls on the government to permanently scrap the clean fuel standard. That standard requires primary fuel suppliers, refiners and importers to progressively reduce the life cycle carbon intensity of the gasoline and diesel they produce and sell. This measure aims to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30 million tonnes annually by 2030. It encourages fuel providers to innovate, like blending lower-carbon biofuels like ethanol into their products; invest in renewable energy sources; or purchase credits from EV charging providers. This motion would set that back, and New Democrats cannot support that.
Finally, Jack Layton is the person who got the Liberal government to devote one cent of the federal excise gas tax to municipalities, including to provide stable funding for public transit.
New Democrats will continue to work for positive proposals like that, instead of measures that will not help consumers, will hurt the government's ability to innovate and will pad the profits of an oil and gas sector that is already enriching itself at the cost of Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to listen to my New Democratic friend. Often I find that the national New Democratic Party is offside with New Democratic parties that are actually in government. For example, the provincial Government of Manitoba under Wab Kinew provided a 14¢ tax break on gasoline back in 2024. The NDP in the province of Manitoba seems to be very supportive of that particular initiative.
When I look at the NDP nationally, it tends not only to oppose the federal government's giving the tax break, for the reasons the member claims to be true, but also seems to be going further to the left in regard to the issue of pipelines. Maybe the member could provide the NDP's current position on whether or not Wab Kinew was right in doing what it is that we are doing—
Mr. Speaker, I am so glad my friend gave me a chance to talk about the fantastic job that Premier Wab Kinew is doing in Manitoba. I was in Manitoba just last week, in the provincial legislature. I was attending the Canadian Labour Congress convention. The types of policies and measures that the Kinew government is bringing in, as a New Democrat government in Manitoba, would be very instructive for this government to follow, if it could. I am very proud of that government.
I noticed my friend did not address the main thrust of my argument, which is that the Liberals brought in a measure on April 20 that they said would lower gas prices for Canadians. They took 10¢ off the price of a litre of gas in this country, telling Canadians that they would pay less at the pump. It was $1.69 a litre on April 20, and it is $1.81 today. It did not work. That is math, and my honourable colleague would do well to focus on the math.
The New Democrats are calling for measures that will actually help consumers, not hurt them.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague 100%. What happened every time the government was lenient with the oil and gas industry by saying it would bring prices at the pump down for consumers? The oil and gas industry turned around and boosted its refining margins, essentially pocketing the tax cut. That is just obscene, especially considering that these huge corporations raked in record profits in 2022, 2023 and 2024, profits that were turned into dividends, most of which went to the United States because their shareholders are American.
The government is still investing in this sector. I would like my colleague to comment on that. It is utterly indecent.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, New Democrats said at the time that the Liberal government had proposed this measure without any kind of cap or measure to prevent oil companies from taking a portion of that 10¢ and just hiking their price. The Liberals did nothing. Of course it had a predictable unfortunate result.
New Democrats have been calling for real measures that would actually help Canadians at the pump. Bringing in a cap on prices at the pump in a time of crisis would actually help consumers. Bringing in a windfall profits tax on oil and gas companies, which are making $90 billion this year and are not suffering, and using that money to help Canadians by lowering their cost of living in a variety of ways would help.
While I am at it, I will just conclude by saying to my hon. colleague, who talked about previous governments, that he would do well to study the government of C.D. Howe, a Liberal government during World War II that did bring in measures to stop corporations from making obscene profits by profiting off war and to protect consumers. He should take a look and read—
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member in recognizing that there is an affordability crisis and that Canadians need relief.
It would certainly provide a lot of relief to almost every single Canadian family to have the price of gas reduced by the amount of taxes being charged by the Liberal government. We cannot control global oil prices, so those profits with the oil companies would be there. However, they are also going to generate a lot of corporate taxes to the federal government, which would offset the loss from reducing the excise tax, the GST and the industrial carbon tax on the price of fuel.
Would the member agree with me that this would be a good start?
Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague that there will be corporate taxes generated on the additional corporate profits that are made. However, when we are talking about a windfall like this, an extra $60 billion of unanticipated revenue, a case can be made that an excess profits tax is appropriate, especially when that profit was not made because of extra investment by the oil and gas industry but because of geopolitical instability that has caused a spike in world prices.
What we do agree on is that we need to give consumers relief in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I would be honoured to share my time with the member for London—Fanshawe.
Today residents in Edmonton Northwest are feeling the increasing pressure of unaffordability. Yes, there is global uncertainty, but global uncertainty is not an excuse to delay implementing the necessary relief Canadians need today. As the PM rhetorically says, “We need to focus on what we can control,” and what his government controls is taxes.
For Canadian families, high gas and food prices are not a new reality exacerbated by global conflict. For many, this comes after a decade of rising costs, higher taxes and inflationary spending from a government that recklessly tries to convince Canadians that the government is not the problem.
Canadians know better. Families in Edmonton Northwest tell me that rising costs at the gas pump are forcing impossible choices. They are deciding between filling their tanks and paying for essentials like groceries or rent. For many families, driving is not a luxury. It is not optional. It is how they get to work, take their children to school activities, attend appointments and remain connected to their communities.
Just last week, I spent some time with seniors in Edmonton Northwest, and they shared with me how much their lives have changed. They told me they are seeing their loved ones less often because their already stretched pensions simply do not go far enough. Something as simple as driving across the city to spend time with family is becoming harder to afford.
Think about that: Canadians who have worked their entire lives and contributed to their communities are now being forced to think twice before driving to visit the people they love the most. This is not just a financial issue. It is a quality of life issue. The same applies to accessing health services and social activities.
These rising fuel costs do not just affect families. Businesses in Edmonton Northwest, like K-Bro Linen, face growing operating costs. Organizations such as Chrysalis, which serves persons with disabilities, the YMCA, Play On!, Special Olympics Alberta, the Westend Seniors Activity Centre, Islamic Family and the Beulah Alliance Church, all depend on transportation to deliver services and support their communities.
When fuel costs rise, this impacts everyone. It affects volunteers driving to programs, parents taking their children to activities, workers commuting to their jobs and organizations trying to meet the needs of the people they serve. When people cannot afford to fill up their tanks, families, businesses and communities suffer. These are the people who need relief from Liberal fuel taxes the most.
Edmonton has the most refinery capacity in our country and is proud to supply everyone as much as possible with essential fuel and energy to sustain their lives. We should not feel the stress of high prices caused by government taxes for our own resources, but the impact does not stop there. Rising fuel prices increase the cost of transporting goods across our country. Groceries do not appear on store shelves on their own. Materials do not arrive at construction sites without transportation. Small businesses do not receive their supplies without trucks on the road. Every increase at the gas pump creates a chain reaction throughout the economy. Businesses face higher transportation costs. Those costs are passed along to consumers, and Canadians end up paying more for the necessities they need every day.
Higher gas prices also impact public services. K-Bro Linen in Edmonton Northwest faces higher costs to deliver uniforms and other items to health care providers and other service providers across Edmonton. This impact is felt in indigenous communities and local governments as well. Communities such as Ermineskin Cree Nation face increasing costs to operate essential services like water delivery and utilities. Communities such as James Smith Cree Nation feel additional strain in operating community safety, policing services, security services and administration. Rising fuel costs place greater pressure on services that people rely on every day.
For many rural and indigenous communities, transportation costs carry an even greater burden. Distances are longer, options are fewer and services are often spread out. Rising fuel costs can mean even higher operating expenses for communities already working hard to deliver services and support their members. The community members often most affected are children, seniors and women, many of whom already face limited and expensive transportation.
Canada should be in one of the strongest positions in the world. We are a country rich in natural resources, especially oil and gas, with the potential to strengthen our economy and contribute to global energy needs. For years, our resource sector has raised concerns about the regulatory barriers, permit delays and uncertainty that have slowed development and investment. More than a decade ago, global oil prices were at similar levels, yet Canadians paid 50¢ less at the pump. Canadians are asking a reasonable question: Why are they paying more today?
When governments burden our resource sector with additional bureaucracy and taxes, every person feels the impact. Investment slows, opportunities are delayed and costs continue to rise for Canadian families. In a time when Canadian families are already facing economic challenges, we should be doing everything in our power to help them get ahead, yet many professionals in Edmonton Northwest are struggling to keep up with the pressures they face.
The motion before us highlights another reality. Gas prices in Canada are 13% higher than in the United States, 22¢ per litre more here in Canada. For families filling up their tanks every week, these differences matter. Canadians do not want excuses. They do not want to hear that enough has already been done while they continue to struggle with the rising cost of living. A half attempt to a temporary measure is not relief. Canadians want action that lowers costs and restores confidence. They want to know that the government understands the challenges that they are facing.
Conservatives are asking the government to put an end to all federal taxes on gas and diesel for the rest of the year, including the GST, and to permanently scrap the clean fuel standard. These are measures intended to provide relief that Canadians would see directly at the gas pumps.
Canadians do not want to hear that the Brookfield class is being used as an excuse to not help the majority of Canadians who need this relief the most today. Canadians are working hard. They should not feel punished for driving to work, taking their children to activities, visiting loved ones or keeping essential services running. They are not asking for a government to take care of them through subsidies or socialist programs that lead to being taxed more. Canadians are asking for a government to finally get out of the way.
Canadians deserve answers as to why the current government has created a system where gas prices are 13% higher in Canada than in the United States and they are spending 22¢ on the dollar more per litre than the Americans. Canadians are right to question how the current Liberal government justifies gas costing 50¢ more per litre today than when global prices were at the same level in 2014. Canadians deserve policies that make life more affordable, opportunities that allow them to get ahead and a government that recognizes the reality they face every day.
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is acting like the government has done nothing on affordability, but I can think of a myriad of things, including reducing costs by 28¢ a litre at the pumps, a tax break for 22 million that the Conservatives supported, the child care benefit, the $10-a-day child care that is saving thousands of dollars for families, a grocery rebate of $1,800 per family and the cancelling of the consumer carbon tax, which I personally had been calling for, for about a decade.
Would the member not agree that these measures are helping affordability?
No, Mr. Speaker, I would not agree. Why would we be having this conversation in the first place? It has been the same government for the last 11 years trying the same old things that it has always done. I believe that is insanity, at the end of the day. I would encourage that member to go back to the principles that brought her to the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer a few comments to my colleague.
We see that the Liberals' gas tax cut mainly benefits the wealthy, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer; that it is “an unfair and short-sighted measure”, according to Normand Mousseau of the Institut de l'énergie Trottier, which is affiliated with Polytechnique Montréal; and that lowering gas taxes is a bad idea masquerading as a good one, according to Luc Godbout, a prominent economist at the University of Sherbrooke.
What we are debating today is, first and foremost, the suspension of fuel taxes. This would deprive the government of tax revenue during this period of deficit, so it is another bad idea masquerading as a good one. Furthermore, in Quebec, we see that the fuel tax dates back to 1924 and is used for road maintenance.
Finally, a reduction would run counter to the government's climate change goals and the 2030 target, while other countries in Asia and Europe are aiming for net zero and implementing measures to achieve this energy transition.
What does my colleague think of all this?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Quebec was talking about equitability in how this is applied. I have heard that question throughout the House today, and I find it perplexing that the excuse being used not to do this is the Brookfield class. The rich people across this country are hindering getting things done for the majority of Canadians who are feeling this pinch at the pumps and with respect to affordability. It is the same principle that the Liberals use when they focus on criminals rather than the victims. It is the government that is messing everything up, and that is what I would reflect in respect to her question.
Mr. Speaker, it is a little rich for the Liberal government to be talking down a very important motion like the one we are putting through today, which would, of course, eliminate all taxes on fuel and all taxes on gas for the entire year, especially given the fact that the government has created the highest housing costs in the history of the country. The government has the highest fuel and gas prices that we have ever seen in the country. The government has created the worst food affordability record of all the G7 countries.
We have completed two weeks in our constituencies and met with residents in our ridings. I wonder if the member could share whether the residents in his riding are feeling the same thing that I have heard in my riding, which, of course, is an abysmal thing that families are facing, that they cannot make ends meet. I wonder if he is hearing the same thing, or if it is somewhat different in that part of the country.
Mr. Speaker, this is about Canada, whether it is the east coast, the northern reaches of our country, the west coast or where I am from, in Edmonton, Alberta. He is from Ontario. In Alberta, I heard the same thing. Last week, doing town halls and going to the Westend Seniors Activity Centre, I heard from seniors that they are picking and choosing when to go see their grandkids, when to get out of the house and when to engage with their community. What I learned from the elders and the seniors back in my own home community is that if one does not use it, one loses it. These are members who are stuck at home and slowly going the way that they did not wish for their retirement, being shut in. Gas prices can affect that. Gas prices can make life more affordable for seniors, the most important people who deserve an affordable life across our country.
Mr. Speaker, this morning millions of Canadians got in their vehicles and headed to work. They did not have the luxury of deciding whether they needed fuel because they needed it. They needed it to get to work, to get their children to school, to care for their aging parents and to make deliveries, visit clients, run businesses and earn a living. When fuel prices rise sharply, as Canadians have experienced in recent months, fuel begins to take up a larger share of the household budget. The money has to come from somewhere. The question is not whether Canadians will fill the tank, but what they will have to give up elsewhere in order to do it. Will it mean less money for groceries, for savings, for their children's activities or to be set aside for an emergency? For millions of Canadians, fuel is not a luxury, but a necessity. That is why we are having this debate today.
Fuel prices are not shaped by one force alone. Global instability, energy markets, supply chains and economic uncertainty play a role. Canadians understand that. There are many challenges facing Canadians that lie beyond the government's control. Government cannot remove every one of those challenges, but at the very least it should not be making those challenges unnecessarily harder.
That simple principle is at the heart of our opposition day motion. I was reminded of that principle just a few days ago while hosting a seniors town hall in London—Fanshawe. We discussed retirement security, the problems seniors are encountering with the dental care program and government services. Once again, the cost of living dominated the conversation. Seniors spoke about the rising cost of groceries, about housing costs and about the everyday expenses that continue to rise while their incomes remained fixed. What struck me the most was not simply the concern about affordability itself. Many were not speaking only about themselves, but were worried about their children and their grandchildren. They see young families working hard and struggling just to get ahead. They see household budgets stretched thinner than ever. They worry that, despite all the speeches, promises and announcements coming from the Liberal government, things continue moving in the wrong direction. Whether it is a young family, a tradesperson, a small business owner or a senior, the concern is remarkably similar. Life is becoming more expensive. People are feeling the pressure and they want the government to stop making it worse.
In London—Fanshawe, we often experience these pressures early. Our community is deeply connected to manufacturing, transportation and North American supply chains. We sit just over an hour from the United States border. We understand better than most that Canada's prosperity depends on our ability to compete. When uncertainty grows, communities like ours often feel it first. When costs rise, we feel it. When investment slows, we feel it. When businesses become hesitant about expansion, we feel it. When families begin tightening household budgets, we feel it.
Today, London's unemployment rate sits at 9.2%, the highest in the country. Communities like ours often experience economic pressures before much of the country does. That is why London is the canary in the coal mine for the Canadian economy. What begins in communities like ours rarely stays there. The warning signs eventually spread. Today, those warning signs are becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. Businesses are increasingly looking beyond Canada for opportunities to invest and grow. Families are delaying purchases. Workers are wondering what the future holds.
Because of our close economic ties to the United States, trade uncertainty is not an abstract policy decision for communities like ours. It affects investment decisions, hiring decisions and confidence. It affects whether businesses choose to expand or wait. Canadians were told that the Prime Minister was uniquely equipped to handle this challenge. They were told that he would use every tool available to strengthen Canada's position. They were told that he would secure a deal, yet today Canadian businesses are still operating under the same uncertainty. Investment decisions are still being delayed, employers are still waiting for clarity and Canadian workers are still wondering what comes next.
We cannot control what President Trump says or does, no Canadian government can, but we can control how we position ourselves. We can control whether Canada is competing from a position of strength. We can control whether we are attracting investment or driving it away. We can control whether we are making it easier or harder to build, produce, transport and compete here at home.
There are many challenges facing Canadians that lie beyond the government's control. The government cannot remove every one of those challenges, but at the very least, it should not be making those challenges unnecessarily harder. Canadians are paying significantly more for fuel than Americans. Families, businesses, truckers and manufacturers all notice the difference.
They are all asking a simple question: Why, at a time when Canadians are already facing so much economic pressure, is the government continuing to add costs of its own? Costs imposed on fuel do not stay at the gas station. They move through the entire economy. They affect transportation, agriculture, construction, manufacturing, deliveries and food prices. Every product that must be moved, every service that requires transportation and every business that depends on fuel eventually feels the impact.
The costs go somewhere. They are reflected in prices, business decisions and competitiveness. Ultimately, they are reflected in the cost of living paid by Canadian families. That is why this debate is about more than what appears on the receipt at the pump. It is about whether Canadians can get ahead. It is about whether businesses can remain competitive. It is about whether our economy is becoming stronger or weaker. It is also about whether the government understands that every additional cost imposed on necessities eventually lands on the shoulders of ordinary Canadians.
The issue extends beyond what Canadians pay at the pump. It speaks to a broader philosophy that treats higher costs as somebody else's problem. Whether those costs are imposed through fuel taxes, the clean fuel standard or industrial carbon taxes, they do not disappear. They move through supply chains. They increase production costs. They increase transportation costs. They increase the cost of doing business. They ultimately make Canada less competitive. That matters for manufacturing, agriculture, transportation and industries that will shape the future economy.
Countries around the world are competing for investment in advanced manufacturing, data centres and artificial intelligence. These industries require enormous amounts of affordable and reliable energy. If Canada continues making energy more expensive while our competitors work to attract investment, we should not be surprised when the investment goes elsewhere.
Canadians spent years warning government that affordability was becoming a crisis. Conservatives spent years warning government that affordability was becoming a crisis. For years, Canadians were told not to worry. For years, they were told that the carbon tax was the answer. Eventually, after years of pressure from Canadians and years of opposition from Conservatives, the government finally backed away from its signature carbon tax. However, the lesson was larger than a single tax.
Canadians were not objecting to a single line item on a bill. They were objecting to a broader approach that kept making essential parts of life more expensive. The lesson was that affordability matters. The lesson was that governments cannot continually make necessities more expensive and expect Canadians not to notice. The lesson was that when families are struggling, the government should be looking for ways to reduce the burden, not increase it.
That is why temporary relief on federal taxes applied to gasoline and diesel through the remainder of the year makes sense. Canadians need relief now. People are already feeling the impact of rising fuel costs. They do not need additional taxes that make the situation worse. It is also why permanently eliminating the clean fuel standard makes sense. Temporary pressures may justify temporary relief, but structural costs require structural solutions. At a time when affordability remains one of the defining challenges facing Canadians, government should not be in the business of making energy, transportation and everyday life more expensive.
Canadians are doing their part. They are working hard. They are raising families. They are building businesses. They are adapting to challenges that often lie beyond their control. There are many challenges facing Canadians that lie beyond the government's control. Government cannot remove every one of those challenges, but at the very least, it should not be making those challenges unnecessarily harder. That is exactly what this proposal seeks to accomplish. For that reason, I am pleased to support it.
Mr. Speaker, I think, as we wind up debate on this issue, it is important to highlight the fact that the Prime Minister was elected just over a year ago, and his first action was to take away the carbon tax. It had a wonderful and positive impact on the price of gas; I believe it was somewhere around 15¢ a litre.
We can fast-forward to today, where we had, I believe effective April 1, a 10-cent reduction on the excise tax on gasoline. We have seen a significant drop because of the tax break provided by the government. What I have a tough time with is the hypocrisy that comes from the Conservative benches. They talk about affordability. When we introduce affordability measures like the groceries and essentials benefit, the Conservatives vote against it, and that is not the lone example.
Why the hypocrisy from the Conservative Party of Canada when it comes to the issue of affordability?
Mr. Speaker, I am a little confused with regard to the definition of “hypocrisy”, because the Liberal solution was tax relief on fuel all the way to September 1, yet our solution is tax relief to the end of the calendar year. With regard to that, I see the Conservative solution as helping Canadians more than what the Liberal government is doing.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the Bloc Québécois motion that called on the federal government to pay back the $814 million it owes Quebeckers. His colleagues voted against that motion. That seems rather strange to me.
If they really want to help Canadians save money and they really want to be fair, then why have they forgotten about Quebeckers? I do not understand. The Conservatives hold some ridings in Quebec. I am shocked at this lack of interest in the plight of Quebeckers.
I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I have a quick answer for my Bloc colleague: The proposed solution, as I mentioned before, was to help all Canadians, including Quebeckers.
It being 5:30 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.
[Translation]
The question is on the motion.
[English]
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.
Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 27, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
Private Members' Business
[Private Members' Business]
[English]
An Act to repeal certain restrictions on shipping
moved that Bill C-264, An Act to repeal certain restrictions on shipping, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise in the House today to speak on behalf of the residents of Calgary Signal Hill.
“The...MOU will build a pipeline”. Canada's Prime Minister made that statement in the House just four months ago. Of course, the Prime Minister was referring to the Memorandum of Understanding signed by the Province of Alberta and the federal government just six months ago.
Since that time, the Prime Minister has made a number of statements promising Canadians additional oil export capacity by pipeline for the single most valuable natural resource exported by Canada. For example, the Prime Minister said less than two weeks ago, “we will advance a potential pipeline to transport at least one million barrels of low-emission Alberta oil a day to new markets.” That statement is consistent with what the Prime Minister said a year ago: “If you want a simple answer on ‘Will I support...a pipeline?’ Yes. That simple answer. I’ve given that multiple times.”
Over and above the statements of the Prime Minister, the Province of Alberta and the federal government, just 10 days ago, signed an implementation agreement respecting the November MOU. The implementation agreement says that Alberta will submit a comprehensive proposal for an oil pipeline to Asian markets to the Major Projects Office by July 1, just over five weeks from now, and, second, that “Canada will pursue [its designation] as a project of national interest for approval under the Building Canada Act by October 1, 2026”. We might just be getting somewhere.
Members may be wondering if the bill up for debate right now is indeed Bill C-264, an act to repeal the west coast tanker ban. After all, I have mentioned nothing about ships or tankers, just pipelines. The fact is that a precondition of the construction of a new crude oil export pipeline is the ability to load the oil transported by that pipeline onto a tanker for delivery to international markets. While Canada presently loads hundreds of thousands of barrels of crude oil onto ships through the Westridge terminus of the Trans Mountain pipeline at Burnaby, B.C., Bill C-48, the west coast tanker ban, prevents shipment from the northern B.C. coast.
Greg Ebel, the CEO of Enbridge, Canada's biggest crude oil shipper, said, “No company would build a pipeline to nowhere.” Further, Mr. Ebel stated, “The tanker ban is a great example of how things will have to change to allow our country to maximize its economic potential. Let markets and real demand guide routes and capacities while government focuses on enabling the conditions for success.” Truer words are seldom spoken.
Let us put these pieces together. The Prime Minister wants a pipeline built. Industry will build a pipeline and fill it with oil if that oil can be loaded onto tankers on Canada's west coast for export. Therefore, our next logical step is to repeal Bill C-48, the west coast Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, to allow for the safe and responsible ocean transport of crude oil that has been safely and responsibly produced here in Canada.
There is good news, and it is only Tuesday. The Conservatives are here to help, and Bill C-264 is just what the doctor ordered: a repeal of the tanker ban so that the way would be clear for the construction of a new crude oil export pipeline and an increase in the safe and responsible shipment of Canadian oil to our international trading partners and allies across Asia.
The demand for responsibly produced Canadian energy, including crude oil, has already been made clear. Nations that are not energy self-sufficient are interested in Canada as an energy supplier. We are a stable, democratic nation with environmental standards that are second to none, and we are a supplier of choice. Countries including India, Indonesia, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and Japan, the very countries with which the Prime Minister is trying to grow our trading relationships, want Canadian energy.
While we have a great deal to gain by eliminating the west coast tanker ban, Canada also has something to lose if we do not take this opportunity to remove obstacles and develop the capacity to supply our international trading partners. Tim McMillan, former minister of energy and resources for the Province of Saskatchewan, was CEO of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers in 2019 when he stated, “Bill C-48 has the potential to permanently block Canada from exporting its responsibly produced natural resources to growing international markets, preventing us from helping to displace global greenhouse gas emissions and lift other nations out of energy poverty.”
Martha Hall Findlay, former Liberal member of Parliament, was markedly more blunt when she said the tanker ban “was bad legislation and the government should get rid of it.” Ms. Hall Findlay identified a different approach from that taken by the current Liberal government with Bill C-48, when she said, “There are better alternatives to C-48, such as setting aside what are called Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas, which have been established in areas such as the Great Barrier Reef and the Galapagos Islands.”
Why do we have Bill C-48? When the Liberals put the tanker ban in place, they argued that it was necessary for protecting the environment. That argument is completely inconsistent with the reality of commercial shipping on Canada's west coast. Nearly a century of tanker traffic has sailed the west coast without a serious oil spill of Canadian crude. Tankers are statistically safer than cars, airplanes, trains and even oil pipelines, when we look at the number of shipments safely transported. Right now the port of Vancouver loads roughly 400 oil tankers each year, and there have been no spills. Our safety standards are world-class, and our safety record proves it.
The Liberals also argued that the tanker ban was required in order to protect the Hecate Strait in particular, because it is difficult to navigate and supposedly remarkably dangerous. This argument does not seem to have a basis in scientific fact. There are no Transport Canada risk analyses that describe the strait as particularly challenging. B.C. passenger ferries travel through the strait on a regular basis. The Prince Rupert Port Authority says the Hecate Strait is “a deep, ice free inlet with easy access and can be entered at all times and in all seasons.”
When it comes to rough weather, I have been told by a former port authority employee that the high-tech solution is to wait. Satellite weather analysis and modern technology mean that ship captains can see rough conditions coming or see when they exist, and they simply wait out those conditions.
The fact is that loaded oil tankers have passed through the Hecate Strait in the last half-dozen years during the existence of the tanker ban. There have not been many passages, but it does happen. I would suggest that it is not well known that these voyages have occurred from time to time, because the tankers have transited the Hecate Strait safely and without incident.
It is important to note that oil tankers do not need to pass through the Hecate Strait to transport crude oil from the northern B.C. port of Prince Rupert. Rather, ships headed to international ports would sail through the Dixon Entrance and into the open ocean. The Dixon Entrance is a body of water that is 13 kilometres wide at its narrowest point. By way of illustration, 289 tankers would fit side by side across that distance of 13 kilometres.
I want to speak to the safety of our maritime shipping industry. Today's tanker fleet is double-hulled, it sails using GPS navigation technology, it is extensively monitored, and when close to shore it requires escort tugs and marine pilots specifically trained on the waters that the ship is in. Tankers and commercial shipping are very safe, and we should be supporting and celebrating the capacity that exists on our west coast, rather than doubting the ability of our seafaring professionals to get this job done and done right.
While overall safety is very high, marine accidents can and do happen. The most common causes, however, are not dangerous waters or freak weather occurrences but ship collisions and groundings. These accidents, logically, tend to happen when ships are near ports, and particularly when the ports are congested. The port of Vancouver currently suffers from congestion issues and aging infrastructure, and the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion has already increased tanker traffic there. Additional port capacity at Prince Rupert and Kitimat can reduce the pressure on the port of Vancouver and increase shipping safety.
Again, former Liberal MP Ms. Hall Findlay was succinct on the subject of shipping risk. She said, “There are risks associated with any kind of transportation with any goods, and not all of them are with oil tankers. All that singling out one part of one coast did was prevent more oil and gas from being produced that could be shipped off that coast”.
Those who feel our west coast tanker waters are too dangerous for crude oil tankers must be wondering how different our east coast is from our west coast. On Canada's east coast, roughly 240 tanker trips every year move crude oil on the St. Lawrence River between storage in Montreal and refining facilities outside of Quebec City. In Newfoundland and Labrador, about 90 oil tankers visit the Whiffen Head facility every year to load crude oil.
Denise Mullen, director of environment, sustainability and indigenous relations at the Business Council of British Columbia, said this about the west coast tanker ban: “Comparable shipments face no such restrictions on the East Coast.... This unfair treatment reinforces Canada’s over-reliance on the U.S. market, where Canadian oil is sold at a discount, by restricting access to Asia-Pacific markets.”
It is 100% clear that the Canadian energy sector is the financial backbone of our country. That is something that I and hundreds of thousands of Canadians engaged in the responsible production of Canadian oil and gas are rightfully proud of. In the face of this fact, it is not just self-defeating to maintain the west coast tanker ban but simply nonsensical.
Denise Mullen, with the Business Council of British Columbia, as I mentioned, said it well. She said the tanker ban “results in billions in lost government revenues and reduced private investment at a time when our economy can least afford it.”
The Liberal tanker ban was always about shutting down Canadian oil production, not safety or environmental protection. For more than half a decade now, the Liberal west coast tanker ban has been a roadblock to true nation building. It has not been just a piece of legislation. It has been a project killer. It is part of the Liberal anti-energy agenda that over the last decade effectively ended the northern gateway pipeline and the indigenous-owned Eagle Spirit energy project.
We must pause to consider the gravity of these facts. If those projects had been allowed to move forward, Canada would already be providing energy security to countries like South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and India, not just talking about it. Our energy industry is world-leading in advanced technologies, environmental safety and impact; creates thousands of high-paying jobs; and fosters real economic reconciliation with indigenous communities. Our energy industry deserves our support, real and concrete support through action, not just words and high-minded ideas.
Our Conservative caucus supported the government legislation that created the Major Projects Office. It was, and is, not the best solution to getting our country building again, but it was a small step in the right direction. Right now, we need to take another step in the right direction: repeal the tanker ban and further clear the way to making Canada a true energy superpower.
We must focus on the facts, focus on the science, trust the experts in marine shipping who will work with local communities, work with indigenous communities, and work with fishers and other marine transporters and shippers to ensure that shipping of all descriptions will be safe and secure. We need to reject sea stories and hysteria and have confidence that we can ship crude oil and do it safely.
I give the last word to Martha Hall Findlay, former Liberal member of Parliament, as I mentioned, who said, “I’m hoping that we see the revival of a federal government that brings pragmatism to governing the country.... Repealing [Bill] C-48 would be a sign of that happening.”
I have, I am sure, just a few seconds left. I received an interesting email from a resident in North Vancouver. Her name is Andrea, and she writes, “I've been very frustrated with this tanker ban. No such thing set up for the east, so why B.C.? This has always seemed too extreme. We have tankers coming and going in the Salish Sea, Georgia Strait, Vancouver Harbour and especially the very narrow and relatively shallow Lions Gate Bridge entrance with no issues.”
I will end there.
Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to consultations with indigenous people toward the very tail end of his comments. In coming up with his private member's bill, has the member done any consultation with indigenous communities? Could he let us know of any indigenous communities where he has gotten support for the bill?
Mr. Speaker, I think the next member to speak to the bill will be able to give some insight into the viewpoints of indigenous communities on this.
I would note that historically, a significant amount of indigenous community support was assembled and put into place through discussion, consultation and negotiation for northern gateway. As I mentioned in my remarks, the Eagle Spirit energy project itself was indigenous-led and -created. Both of those projects were terminated by a Liberal government with an anti-oil, anti-energy agenda.
Work has been done. It has been thwarted to date. I would welcome the opportunity, once the way is clear, for private industry to undertake those obligations with respect to consultation.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, earlier in his speech, my colleague referred to Enbridge's CEO.
There is a quote I like from the Enbridge CEO. He said he was not willing to take the financial risks that come with a pipeline. The CEO of Enbridge believes that, if a pipeline is to be built, it should be paid for with public money. The pipeline project they are talking about and for which the government wants to repeal a law that protects nature is nothing more than a fantasy.
I would like my colleague to enlighten me. Does he agree that it is up to all taxpayers to pay for oil and gas infrastructure that will benefit the oil companies? Also, before throwing out regulations like these, should he not ensure that, at the very least, someone is prepared to be the proponent of a project like the pipeline?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I will start by thanking my friend for the vote of confidence that I might have the several billion dollars required to advance a pipeline project, but I am afraid that is not within my capacities.
Were circumstances and all things equal, I would absolutely be prepared to be a proponent for a pipeline project. I believe in pipelines. Our country has well in excess of 100,000 kilometres of pipelines operating safely beneath our soil, right now, this minute. The reason I think Canadians generally are not aware of that is that these pipelines operate safely, without incident, on an ongoing, daily basis. They have for decades, in many cases. We have had the luxury of forgetting about them.
The question of public money is an important one. I do not believe there should be any public money in a pipeline. In fact, I do not believe there is any necessity for that. As long as the regulation is appropriate and the government is out of the way, the private sector will take care of this.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his excellent speech. I think more Canadians than ever before are ready to hear it. They want the government to change the fundamentals, to get rid of its anti-energy laws, so that Canada can be affordable, self-reliant, strong and free.
In partial response to what a Liberal member asked my colleague earlier, I would just point out that, indeed, when former Prime Minister Trudeau, advised by the current Prime Minister, vetoed the northern gateway pipeline, he did not consult any of the various indigenous communities that had worked for years to establish agreements and had hopes and plans for the revenue that would derive from that pipeline. The former prime minister could have chosen the option to get the court right. He did not. Then he screwed up TMX, and he called a mulligan on it later.
Those are the facts. What is also interesting about this tanker ban, and my colleague is exactly right, is that it is actually about stopping the shipping of energy exports for the benefit of Canada and global security, because it only stops the onloading and off-loading of crude and persistent oils.
I wonder if my colleague would talk about the negative signal that maintaining the tanker ban sends and how it does not actually line up with the Prime Minister's great rhetoric of Canada becoming an energy superpower, which every single one of us knows could happen if—
Mr. Speaker, the enthusiasm of my colleague always energizes me.
The opportunity that we have is very significant. It has been made clear, and I have heard it in various contexts from various individuals involved in working in the energy industry, that a necessary precondition for a pipeline construction company to get serious about a pipeline is the ability to offtake the oil. A million barrels a day are not going into the ocean. They must go to a tanker, so there has to be, as a precondition, the ability to ship the oil.
Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to speak to Bill C-264, and I will say at the outset what the central problem with this bill is. It is a one-line proposition dressed up as serious policy. It is a slogan in legislative form. It asks this Parliament to do something that the legislative record, the scientific record, the consultation record and the conservation record of this country have all decided against repeatedly over 50 years under prime ministers of every party. Perhaps we should take a walk down memory lane and look at history.
In 1972, the House passed a resolution declaring that “the movement of oil by tanker along the coast of British Columbia...is inimical to Canadian interests”. It said “inimical”. That was the language of this Parliament in 1972.
In 1985, a Conservative prime minister named Brian Mulroney established a voluntary tanker exclusion zone along the north coast of British Columbia. It was a Tory prime minister, a Tory cabinet and a Tory decision, and a good one at that.
In 1988, that exclusion zone was formalized through coordination between the Canadian Coast Guard, the United States Coast Guard and the Reagan administration. A Conservative government and a Republican government worked together to protect the environment, imagine that. Now a Conservative opposition in Ottawa is working to undo exactly that.
Let us think back to 1989. The Exxon Valdez ran aground in Prince William Sound. Thousands of kilometres of coastline were contaminated. A herring fishery collapsed and is still not yet fully recovered. Marine ecosystems were damaged in ways that are still being studied today. That disaster reinforced what Canadian governments had already concluded: The risk on that coast is unique, and the consequences of failure are too great. Members from British Columbia, particularly, are concerned about this. While I appreciate the concern for the environment from our members from Alberta, this is a particular problem that affects British Columbia, but it should affect the sensibility of all Canadians.
For 34 years, this voluntary moratorium held, through four Conservative prime ministers and four Liberal prime ministers. None of them moved to repeal it, and none of them tried.
In 2017, our government introduced Bill C-48, the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, to give that 34-year consensus the force of statute. It passed the House with support from members of four of five parties represented. That is the history, and that is what this slogan, or this bill, proposes to overturn.
The members opposite are not making a science-based case for repeal. They are not bringing forward new evidence about the risk on the north coast. They are not presenting a new technology or a new spill response capacity that changes that calculus. They are not pointing to a change in the vulnerability of that coast. They are bringing forward a one-line bill, with no consultation, no indigenous engagement and no environmental review, that asks Parliament to undo half a century of careful policy because it might look good in a social media clip.
I want to make a point that I think the members opposite have not fully thought through, and I say this in the spirit of genuine concern for the credibility of debate in this institution. If the members opposite truly believe that a pipeline to the north coast of British Columbia is the future of Canadian energy, passage of this bill would be the worst possible way to pursue that future. The moment that this bill comes to a vote, it would galvanize every coastal first nation, every B.C. municipality, every environmental organization, every one of us who is concerned about the environment and every legal team in the country who has spent decades preparing for exactly this fight. It would guarantee injunctions. It would guarantee litigation. It would guarantee gridlock.
If I were being cynical about it, I might encourage members opposite to proceed and encourage us to vote for it, to tie that up in the courts. Passing this bill would be the single most effective way to ensure that no pipeline ever gets built to the north coast of British Columbia, because the legal and political response that this bill on its own would trigger would be exactly that. That is not how to build big things in this country. That is how to make sure they never get built, and the proof of that is the years of Conservative government when not a single pipeline was built and no progress was made in protecting the environment, all at once. It was quite remarkable.
Let us talk about the substantive case for why this moratorium should stand. First is the nature of the coast itself. The waters from the northern tip of Vancouver Island to the Alaska border are some of the most biologically productive seas on the planet, habitat for over 25 species of marine animals and spawning grounds for salmon runs that sustain ecosystems. This is not any ordinary coastline.
The second is the nature of that risk. Crude oil tankers are vessels carrying volumes of persistent oil that, in the event of a failure, cannot be cleaned up. A herring fishery collapsed after the Exxon Valdez, and as I said earlier, it has still not recovered. The Nathan E. Stewart tug ran aground near Bella Bella in 2016. There was a diesel spill, and the Heiltsuk Nation is still measuring the consequences of that a decade later.
The third is the obligation to coastal first nations, something that seems like an inconvenience to members opposite. The Coastal First Nations alliance has made its position clear, repeatedly, for decades. They are rights holders whose constitutional position is at the centre of it. Those nations have spoken loud and clear, and I would encourage members opposite to speak to them directly to hear their voices.
The fourth pillar is, of course, the alternatives. There is already a pipeline to tidewater in this country, TMX. Expanded and operational, it is moving Canadian energy to global markets through the port of Vancouver, where the safety architecture, the spill response capacity, the marine traffic management and the indigenous consultation frameworks are all built around that infrastructure. Canadian energy has access to the Pacific. It has access to the markets that it needs to be going to, and we are working hard to ensure that, in the cleanest, greenest way possible, we continue to make that possible under the right conditions. It does not need access at the cost of a coastline that this Parliament, 50 years ago, declared inimical to Canadian interests to put at risk.
Unless every single box is checked and all of the criteria are met to the satisfaction of all parties involved, there is no reason for a new pipeline to go through the north coast. If the science has changed, if science tells us something different and if indigenous consultations tell us something different, then we should all be having that conversation, but a one-line bill that proposes to change history just because it would look good is not how serious governments should make decisions.
This is a government that believes in evidence. It is a government that believes in science. This is a government that believes in building a strong economy and protecting a healthy future for our environment. We believe these are not opposites. Quite the opposite, in fact, we believe they are part of the same future.
We have demonstrated that. We have ensured Trans Mountain's viability. We signed a Canada-Alberta memorandum of understanding, which put a $130-per-tonne price floor under industrial carbon pricing in Alberta. We have secured an agreement in principle for a 75% reduction in methane emissions from Alberta's oil and gas sector by 2035. We have launched a joint electricity working group with Alberta to build a net-zero grid by 2050, including transmission interties that will finally allow British Columbia to export clean hydroelectric power eastward.
Let us also look at the facts. From 2014 to 2025, bitumen production in this country grew by 63%. Alberta's royalties from 2021 to 2025 totalled $58 billion, nearly four times what they were in the previous seven years combined. At the same time as this happened, under a Liberal government, we were also able to preserve and protect 6,700 square kilometres on the north coast of British Columbia, larger than the size of P.E.I., in a nature reserve.
That is how intelligent, managed, evidence-based energy policy works. It looks like signing an MOU. It looks like pricing carbon, cutting methane, respecting indigenous rights and our natural environment, and protecting our coast. It looks like building big things and protecting what no amount of private sector intervention can replace. What it does not look like is a one-line bill repealing 50 years of conservation policy because it polls well in a fundraising email for Conservatives. We owe Canadians better than that. We owe the next generation better than that. My son is in the lobby watching this speech today. I owe him better than that. We all do. We owe the coastal communities of British Columbia better than that. The case for repeal has not been made.
I will be voting against Bill C-264. I urge every member of the House who has a conscience, who cares about the coastline of British Columbia and who cares about our environmental future and about building a prosperous economy to do the same.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that the Bloc Québécois will be voting against Bill C-264, which simply seeks to repeal the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act.
When I look at this, I see an irrational bill that can perhaps only be explained by an ideological mindset we are seeing more and more of, one that amounts to saying that anything goes for the oil industry. I will explain what I mean when I say that “anything goes for the oil industry.”
The idea occurred to me earlier when I asked my colleague a question and he replied—and I am going to take the liberty of speaking in English, which I never do here—“I believe in pipelines.” That is quite the statement.
I am a fan of Dostoevsky. This makes me think of a novel by Dostoevsky called Demons, which came out at the end of the 19th century, where Dostoevsky, in the face of ideological excesses, poses a rather simple question: Is everything permitted? Is everything permitted in the name of an ideology?
What strikes me today about this downward spiral we are currently experiencing whenever there is a crisis—be it in response to the tariff crisis, or even when we were going through the COVID-19 pandemic, or a crisis of national unity—is the fact that anything goes. The only solution the Liberal and Conservative parties can come up with to address these issues is to support the gas and oil sector and call for more state intervention to develop oil infrastructure.
The truth is that we are living in a completely absurd situation for this to be happening. We are in a tariff war with the Americans. What are the two economic sectors most affected by this tariff crisis? They are in Quebec. These are the aluminum industry, facing 50% tariffs, and the softwood lumber sector, facing around 45% in combined countervailing duties, anti-dumping duties and tariffs. These are the two sectors most affected by the current tariff dispute with the United States. What has been the government's response to this threat? It has been to say that we need to invest in our energy sector and increase energy exports. That is what the government has chosen.
It signed a memorandum of understanding with the Government of Alberta, and now we are faced with a bill like the one my colleague just introduced. There seems to be a sort of one-upmanship going on between the Liberals and the Conservatives. Who is willing to go the furthest to support the oil and gas sector? That is what is going on.
I do not think we would have seen a bill like this a few months ago if the government had not fallen into the trap of the memorandum of understanding with Alberta.
I have seen this kind of one-upmanship many times over the past several years. When I arrived here in 2019, what surprised me was hearing my Conservative colleagues shouting day in and day out, “build a pipeline”.
Even though hydroelectricity is important to us, I doubt I would ever see a Quebecker in the National Assembly shouting for the construction of power lines. This is not a lifestyle. It is not a political project.
Another thing that struck me was seeing my Conservative colleagues wearing buttons that read “I love oil & gas”.
When I was a boy of 16 or 17, I had a button from my favourite rock band. That rock band represented my identity. It was important to me. Later on, and this still happens in the Bloc Québécois, we wear symbols that are specific to Quebec. We stick Quebec flags on our computers. That is because of our identity. If we were to define what is Quebec's identity, we would speak about culture and language. For some Conservatives, one part of their identity is the oil and gas sector. That is rather surprising in the current context.
In fact, it runs quite deep. I remember one of my Conservative colleagues moving a motion stating that oil is irreplaceable. We debated that for an entire day.
If I were asked to think about something that is irreplaceable for me, I would first and foremost think about my wife and son. Perhaps after that, I would mention water, air and the essentials of life. I would certainly not think about oil.
I asked whether this is a situation where anything goes. What we are seeing today is akin to saying that oil is irreplaceable. This would repeal legislation that was put in place to protect the environment in order to promote the oil sector's agenda for the sake of a hypothetical pipeline.
That is the question that I asked my colleague earlier. He spoke about the CEO of Enbridge, who described the difficulties involved in building oil and gas infrastructure. However, the Enbridge CEO also said that he personally was not prepared to take on the economic risks of building infrastructure. That is where a reasonable Conservative would draw the line.
I enjoyed hearing the leader of the official opposition straight-out say that corporate welfare exists and that companies want their infrastructure paid for. Those are not my words. Those are the words of the leader of the official opposition. It is up to those companies to pay. However, oil and gas sector officials are saying that, in fact, it should fall on the government to assume the economic risk associated with this infrastructure.
It is outrageous. When we look at the numbers from 2021 to 2024, the oil and gas sector raked in $131 billion in profits. Not so long ago, at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, we heard from representatives of the major unions that support the energy sector because they have workers in that sector They told us that we are seeing a dramatic increase in production while there are fewer jobs. How is that possible? It is possible because the people at these big oil and gas companies are greedy and are willing to invest in the automation of their processes to cut jobs and production costs. However, they are not willing to invest in infrastructure.
Today, we are being presented with a motion that asks us to scrap environmental regulations. Who stands to gain from this? It is certainly not the public. This is to make life easier for the oil and gas giants. In return, they come asking us to pay for their infrastructure. It is absolutely outrageous. I do not understand how we got here. Even though we are in a crisis, I do not understand how people who are supposed to be rational, whether they are Liberals or Conservatives, have reached this point.
I would like to conclude by saying the following. As members know, I have a great deal of respect for the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie. Many people have been critical of the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie. He may make an announcement tomorrow. I know that the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie is a well-intentioned person. I know he has decided to do something that is not often done in the environmental movement, namely, to set aside certain convictions in order to be pragmatic. He thought he would try to bring about concrete change.
There is something very simple in politics: A person either sticks to their convictions, or they choose to set their convictions aside for a moment to try to advance their ideas in a more responsible way. I get the impression that the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie has reached a point of no return and that today he is going to return to his old convictions. He has realized that the government may have gone too far.
In my opinion, the bill proposed by my colleague is a manifestation of the current excesses in the oil and gas sector. I sincerely hope that a large number of members of the House will vote against it.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise on behalf of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, and more of an honour to go back over the 20 years of experience I have in project development.
In 2003, we really did not know what environmental assessment, permitting or aboriginal rights and title were. The Haida court case of 2004 still had not come out yet. By 2004-05, we had to piece it all together and try to understand it. We were living in a condemned residential school building that only had one computer and faxes, but we did it. To understand the process to achieve our objectives was the goal, because nothing else worked for us to get our people out of poverty and to get us out from the paternalistic Indian Act. We tried tourism, forestry and programs, but nothing worked, so we changed our strategy after a while and started engaging the economy. That is how Peace in the Forest, LNG and our deliberations on oil came about. It was all based on process, not on ideology or politics. What is the process in place here? How is the government going to ensure that it is going to engage first nations, as per section 35 of the Constitution?
I see that the Prime Minister made an announcement in Vancouver a few days ago saying that it was non-negotiable to deal with aboriginal rights and title. Somehow, people clapped like he invented sliced bread. That has been in place since 2004. The processes that we developed, first nations along with the Crown, the communication processes to breathe life into the Haida court case of 2004, are well established. That ship has sailed.
Now the question is whether the Liberal government is going to override all those processes and all that case law to fast-track a project, meaning a pipeline to the west coast of B.C. We have to remember where this came from. The Prime Minister sold himself as the person who could get control of Trump. That was it. Then, from then on, we started to hear all the doublespeak. Back then, the quote was, from the Prime Minister, “We will win this trade war and build the strongest economy in the G7.” He gave up on that. Then, he changed the narrative to “Many of our former strengths, based on our close ties to America, have become weaknesses—weaknesses that we must correct.” That has not gone over so well.
There was the slogan of “elbows up”, but I guess Trump did not get the idea of what elbows up meant. Then the Prime Minister said, “Canada...has the best trade deal with the United States. While it's different from what we had before, it is still better than that of any other country.”
I think that by now, Canadians understand that tariffs are here to stay. It does not matter if someone is a Republican or Democrat down in the United States, tariffs are here to stay. It got so bad for the Liberals that they hired a former Conservative leader to be part of the negotiation team to see if they could salvage something, but it is not looking so great.
The promise during the campaign was to invoke the Emergencies Act to get projects built, but that was scratched. Then, it was the Building Canada Act. When people come to me and ask what it is all about, I have to tell them that I do not know; I have no idea.
I get process, but this is now such a scattered plan. We just heard the Liberals debating against tanker traffic. It is their MOU with Alberta, not ours. They have the gall to mention that there was no consultation on this bill. There was no consultation on the MOU or the co-operation agreement. Even with Pathways, they made the announcement of carbon sequestration and then they went over to the first nation and said, "Okay, now we are going to consult with you," even though they had made the decision.
It was an afterthought. There was no respect for section 35 of the Constitution. Then the government brought in the doublespeak again. To save face, it was going to talk about consent. It had already made a deal to fast-track a project within one year, with shovels in the ground and all that stuff. Then the Prime Minister said that he would not do anything without consent, not only the consent of the first nations, which would have to be an elaborate plan, but also the consent of the Premier of British Columbia. The government was fighting against its own MOU. It was fighting against its own co-operation agreement. It was fighting against its own Building Canada Act.
All this mixed messaging is failing Canadians. The biggest announcement in the last year to diversify our oil exports was to revive Keystone to bring more oil to the United States. That is not even ironic. The idea was to get away from or at least diversify the markets away from America, not build up more dependence.
When we are talking about the tanker ban itself, we have to know what it is. The ban prohibits oil tankers from stopping, unloading or loading in any port in a designated area. That is it because currently people are allowed to import or export, or even load or unload, 12,500 metric tons of crude oil or persistent oil products.
The Liberals talked about diesel spills on the west coast, which have been happening for the last 100 years. Tugboats go down. Seine boats go down. Gillnetters go down. It does not matter what one's background or ethnicity is. Everybody who owns a boat that sank has contributed to that diesel or gasoline spill. That is not new. In fact, the first nations that still depend on diesel for electricity have had spills at their docks. Now we are trying to eradicate that, of course, but it is going to take time.
We are talking about a voluntary exclusion zone, a buffer zone between tankers and much of B.C.'s coast extending further offshore. We saw the story of an oil tanker going up Hecate Strait between the mainland of B.C. and Haida Gwaii, but we did not get an explanation as to why. I thought it was because of the International Maritime Organization's laws, which Canada is a signatory to. We are talking about safety. There was a rumour saying that it is a shorter distance for an oil tanker to come up from Burnaby, B.C., to go up the strait and then head over to China. That is not much of a tanker ban. The risk is still there.
The Liberal government likes to talk about risk, but fails to mention all the tankers coming from Alaska to Washington state. What does Washington state do with that crude oil? It turns it into aviation jet fuel, gas and diesel, and we buy it from Washington state. We do not have a domestic energy policy. We are vulnerable. We saw the flooding that happened on the Coquihalla Highway in B.C. It got to a point where the Americans came to B.C.'s rescue. B.C. residents were rationed to 30 litres at a time for a fill-up at a gas station. What did Washington state do? It supplemented B.C.'s supply of gasoline and diesel by barging up more gas and diesel. At that time, the NDP premier mused about expanding the refinery capacity at Burnaby, trying to get away from this vulnerability that Canadians face.
There is also a penalty for violating this voluntary tanker moratorium. It can include fines of up to $5 million for each instance of non-compliance. It does not mention anything about Americans. It does not mention anything about the tankers coming from Burnaby.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the members for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-264, an act to repeal certain restrictions on shipping. If the hon. members listen carefully to my speech, they may find answers to some of the questions they have raised today.
As proposed, the bill seeks to repeal the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act even though there are no project proposals on the table that even require it to be amended. This means that all the large-tonnage oil tanker bans and legal requirements currently in force on the north coast of British Columbia would no longer apply, nor would the environmental protection measures that this legislation supports.
Let me be clear: Canada's oceans are a source of pride for Canadians and are of national importance. Our oceans are the cornerstones of our livelihoods and our sovereignty, and protecting them is essential to our economic security and Canada's future. Canada's sovereignty is strengthened when our waters are safe, our ecosystems are protected, our communities are supported and our shipping industry is resilient.
Canada has one of the most stringent marine safety regimes in the world and enforces strict rules on safety, the environment and spill response. We must ensure that any changes to this regime are subject to thorough review and consultation, and that any actions taken are in the public interest of all Canadians.
The act, which received royal assent in 2019, prohibits vessels carrying more than 12,500 metric tons of crude oil or persistent oil products as cargo from stopping, loading or unloading at ports or marine installations within the moratorium area. The protected area extends from the Canada-U.S. border in the north to the tip of British Columbia across from the northern tip of Vancouver Island. It includes Haida Gwaii and protects the Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Strait. The act complements the voluntary tanker exclusion zone, which has been in place since 1985.
The scope of the act is carefully defined. Shipments of less than 12,500 tons are permitted in order to ensure that communities and industry in the north coast receive essential supplies, particularly home heating oil and other oil products.
The Oil Tanker Moratorium Act also does not apply to the transportation of non-persistent oils such as gasoline, naphtha, kerosene and propane, nor to liquefied natural gas or other alternative fuels such as hydrogen, ammonia and methane, which dissipate quickly in the event of a spill.
We all know that the global economy is undergoing significant disruption and that the government is working to diversify our trade relationships and to attract significant investment to build a stronger, more sustainable and more resilient economy. The government is investing in trade-enabling transportation infrastructure and supply chain capacity, as well as working to promote nation-building projects, particularly those that connect our economy and diversify our trade.
As we know, last November, Canada and Alberta signed a memorandum of understanding in the energy sector, which provided that amendments to the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act could be considered if necessary. This does not mean that we are repealing the act, but rather that we recognize the importance of a balanced approach that allows for amendments to the act in the context of a specific project, where the risks, opportunities and mitigation measures specific to that project could be taken into account.
Just as the provisions of the act were carefully considered, any amendments to it must also be carefully considered to ensure that we support economic growth while also protecting our environment. Any amendments to the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act should be considered within the context of a specific project proposal that allows for a clear assessment. This would enable us to take a strategic approach to potential amendments, so as to mitigate risks while continuing to protect the environment.
Canada has not chosen between economic growth and prosperity on one hand and environmental protection on the other. We have pursued both of these objectives simultaneously, and we must continue to do so. We must continue to welcome economic proposals that boost national productivity and market access. However, we must also demand credible plans to protect ecosystems, partnerships with indigenous rights holders and the continued existence of environmental protection measures in the most sensitive areas.
If a proposal affecting the area covered by the moratorium is put before us, we will assess it thoroughly and transparently and, if necessary, carefully consider how to adapt the legislation. Until then, we do not support amending or repealing the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act.
I urge the hon. members of the House to oppose Bill C-264 and to support our environmental protection measures.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to support the private member's bill concerning Bill C-48.
It is mind-boggling to watch the government continue to deny Alberta, and to also deny the facts around the system and the facts around the issue of the incredible contribution that the energy industry makes to Canadian finances and will make in the future as well. We have seen reports that say that losing the northern gateway has cost Canada $20 billion in lost revenue since the Liberal government cancelled it.
The Liberals wonder who is going to bring a new pipeline to Canada and invest billions of dollars. The government wants industry to spend an extra $20 billion for carbon capture. Who is going to spend that to develop a pipeline to nowhere, as the government is proposing, with $20 billion just for the carbon capture, on top of perhaps another $15 billion to get a pipeline to the coast, only to have the Liberal government say no to Alberta oil off the B.C. coast”?
At the same time, the same Liberal government allows hundreds of oil tankers up and down the St. Lawrence and off the east coast, while in B.C., where we have never had a single major spill, the government, not for scientific reasons or financial reasons but for purely ideological reasons, is saying no to bringing Alberta oil to off the B.C. coast.
The private member's bill would end the tanker ban off the B.C. coast and would bring untold wealth to the country when we need it and energy sovereignty when we need it. What better way is there to fight against the Trump tariffs and the economic uncertainty than building this in Canada now?
Adjournment Proceedings
[Adjournment Proceedings]
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I am rising to follow up on a question I asked in question period on the topic of the economy and, in particular, the spring economic update, which we have been debating these last few weeks.
In the spring economic update, the government's charts show that Canada has one of the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratios. In fact, the government brags that Canada's net debt-to-GDP ratio is far below the G7 average of about 100% and is around 10%. However, with every financial statement, I have learned that we have to read the notes, because in the notes we find the information we need to understand these numbers.
When we read the notes to these charts, charts 34, 35 and 36, I believe, in the spring economic update, we will find the following in relation to defining government net debt: “The internationally comparable definition of ‘all levels of government’ includes the central, state, and local levels of government, and social security funds. For Canada, this includes the federal, provincial, territorial, and local and Indigenous government sectors, and the Canada Pension Plan and the Québec Pension Plan.” That is the key provision in the note, right at the end, where it says, “and the Canada Pension Plan and the Québec Pension Plan.”
What the government is saying is that it has included in its calculation of debt and assets Canada's pension plans. Of course, including Canada's pension plans and their assets will lower the net debt-to-GDP ratio, but these assets have been earmarked for future pension obligations. They are not, or at least should not be, available to satisfy general government debt. Of course, the CPP and QPP are independently managed, as they should be.
The government is suggesting in its spring economic update that the pension of Canadians be available to satisfy its debts. I am not arguing about the calculation of net debt to GDP right now. I am simply focused on the idea that the government is suggesting that the assets of the CPP and QPP could be used to satisfy government debts.
My question to the parliamentary secretary this evening is this: Is it the position of the Liberal government that the CPP and the QPP could be raided by foreign creditors to satisfy the government's debts?
Madam Speaker, allow me to start off by emphasizing that the global landscape is rapidly changing, leaving businesses, workers and families under a cloud of uncertainty. As a result of all these geopolitical shifts, the costs of groceries and everyday essentials in Canada have been high for way too long. We believe our economy is stronger when it serves everyone. That is why we took action to make groceries and other essentials more affordable in the near term and, in parallel, to promote food security and support innovation in the agricultural and food sectors.
To support the people most affected by the rising price of food, in January 2026 we announced a new Canada groceries and essentials benefit to help more than 12 million Canadians afford day-to-day essentials. The Canada groceries and essentials benefit builds on the existing goods and services tax credit and will provide $11.7 billion in additional support over six years. This includes a one-time top-up payment to be issued June 5, equal to a 50% increase in the annual 2025-26 value of the GST credit. This delivers, of course, $3.1 billion in assistance to individuals and families who currently get the GST credit.
We know that Canadian household budgets are feeling the squeeze from higher costs. There is no doubt that this spike is causing financial difficulties for far too many individual Canadians. To help Canadians and businesses manage such pressures, our government introduced a temporary suspension of the federal fuel excise tax on gasoline, diesel and aviation fuels. The suspension came into effect on April 20 and will stay in place until and including Labour Day, September 7.
This step is expected to lower Canadian bills at the gas station by up to 10¢ per litre in gasoline and four cents on diesel. Such temporary suspensions are expected to save Canadians up to an estimated $5.75 on gasoline when filling up a typical 50-litre tank of fuel. Overall, the suspension is estimated to provide relief of over $2.4 billion in 2026-27.
We have done even more to alleviate the pressure from the high cost of fuels on Canadian household budgets. Right after taking office, the Prime Minister cancelled the federal consumer fuel charge, effective April 1, 2025, in a move that directly helped Canadians save money at the pump. As of that very same date, our government also removed the requirement for provinces and territories to have a consumer-facing carbon price. These actions helped reduce gas prices in most provinces and territories by about 18¢ per litre in comparison to 2024-25.
There is more. Our government is also delivering major tax breaks to Canadians. Since July 1, Canadians have been paying less tax, after the government lowered the first marginal personal income tax rate from 15% to 14%. Thanks to this change, I would add, 22 million Canadians benefit from tax relief of up to $420 per person, saving two-income families up to $840 this year. Our government has eliminated the GST for first-time buyers 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.
In addition, we have also made the national school food program permanent, providing school meals for up to 400,000 children each year. Despite what the member is suggesting, there are a number of different affordability measures in the update. We are working on that. We are working on investments, and we will continue—
Madam Speaker, I do not know what is going on here. I asked about the pension plans' being considered as an asset. Maybe the Minister of Finance will get up and do the rebuttal.
Why is the Minister of Finance including the Canada pension plan and the Quebec pension plan as an asset against the Government of Canada's debt? Is he saying it is his government's policy that those assets will be available to satisfy foreign creditors? That is the question. Maybe the Minister of Finance will get up and answer it for me.
Madam Speaker, I can only go by the question the member provided us with earlier. If the question is whether we are the type of country that is welcoming investment from various sources to make sure there is economic growth, the answer is absolutely. He knows full well that there are a number of Canadian institutions that are very interested in investing in infrastructure projects, and that, of course, creates jobs.
In addition to that, as the member is fully aware, in September we will have an investment summit. We are doing everything within our power to make sure that we are building, that we are building bold and that we are building big. That, of course, will include investments from various institutions.
Madam Speaker, this topic will not be a stranger to you. I think I was asking about it the last time you were in the chair.
I had the privilege of asking a question of the minister responsible for food production. We have an affordability crisis. People are struggling to pay their bills, particularly at the grocery store and at the checkout. Here is what the Minister of Women and Gender Equality replied:
Mr. Speaker, Canadians need real relief right now, and we are delivering. I have great news. The very first Canada groceries and essentials benefit is going to Canadians right across the country this June.... From grocery support to child care and dental care, we are there. Of course, members already heard today that we are lowering the cost at the pumps by 28¢ per litre.
There is nothing in there about food production. I was asking about the need to produce more food in this country to bring down costs. More supply would mean lower costs for Canadian consumers at the grocery store.
This is after I had asked a question of the agriculture minister, and one question was enough for him. His response to my question about what his department, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, is doing to increase food production in this country was this:
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the hon. member disagrees with child care, dental care, the Canada child benefit, the national school food program, the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, an increase in health transfers, the OAS, eliminating the carbon tax, a tax break for 22 million Canadians....
He then went on to say, “there is no more” and sat down as his own cabinet members were heckling him. Again, there was nothing about food production, so I would like to give the agriculture minister one more chance.
Given that it is his responsibility as the minister responsible for Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, could he please inform my constituents in western Manitoba, and all Canadians, what the government is doing to increase domestic food production so Canadians can have cheaper produce and goods at the grocery store?
Madam Speaker, affordability is at the forefront of the government's attention. That includes, of course, food affordability, so I am very happy to provide a response.
As I suggested to the previous member, the global landscape is rapidly changing, leaving economies, businesses and workers under a cloud of uncertainty. In response, our new government has focused on what we can control, such as building a stronger economy to make life more affordable for Canadians. We understand that many Canadians are struggling to make ends meet and need immediate support. We can all definitely understand this situation.
This is why we launched the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, which will provide support for more than 12 million Canadians. This new benefit will replace the current GST credit, but it will be much more generous, as I am sure the member can agree.
This will start with a one-time top-up next week on June 5. We will also increase the value of the GST credit by 25% for five years starting in July of this year. This will make a real difference for Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet. 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. A single person will receive up to $950 this year and about $700 a year for the next four years. This new benefit will be indexed to inflation. This means that the amounts paid to Canadians will increase each year in line with the rising cost of living.
We have also made the national school food program permanent. This will provide up to 400,000 children with meals at school each year, helping families save an average of $800 annually. These two measures represent real and immediate help.
We are also working on solutions for the long term. The government has announced a series of measures to help bring down costs for Canadians. We have set aside $500 million from the strategic response fund to help businesses address the cost of supply chain disruptions. We are creating a $150-million food security fund under the existing regional tariff response initiative for small and medium-sized enterprises.
Our plan also includes immediate expensing for greenhouse buildings to lower the cost of food production. In addition, we are providing $20 million to the local food infrastructure fund to support food banks and other national, regional and local organizations to deliver more nutritious food to families in need. We are also going to develop a national food security strategy that would strengthen domestic food production and improve access to affordable food, including measures to encourage unit price labelling and support for the work of the Competition Bureau.
Our government remains focused on empowering Canadians by lowering costs, making groceries and other essentials more affordable and expanding opportunity. We have announced a series of new measures to help Canadians make ends meet, and we will continue to remain focused on affordability measures.
Madam Speaker, that was a lesson in obfuscation that would give even the Manitoba provincial NDP a run for their money, and that is saying something. My colleague from Winnipeg North will know what I am talking about.
The member did eventually get to domestic food production at about minute three in that response, but the vast majority of what he talked about was grocery benefits that will not help farmers and producers grow more food domestically. That needs to be more than just a footnote at the very end of the government's responses. It needs to be the primary focus. More supply means cheaper groceries and produce at the store. If there were a small greenhouse benefit, there may be some merit to that, but there needs to be far more done by the government to increase domestic food production.
We see it happening when government acts appropriately. The previous PC government in Manitoba provided the right tax incentives to Vermillion Growers in Dauphin. It has set up a massive tomato greenhouse in rural Manitoba in the Parkland region, which is growing year-round, providing fresh produce to Manitobans and those in eastern Saskatchewan. These things can be done if they are done appropriately. How much longer does the government want to take?
Madam Speaker, I am not quite sure what he means when he talks about obfuscating. I listed a number of measures that have been introduced by government. If the member chooses to ignore them, then I cannot possibly be charged with obfuscating.
It is interesting that the member claims to care about food, but he does not seem to find it within himself to support any of those programs that I listed for him, whether it is the Canada child benefit or cutting taxes for Canadians and providing timely and meaningful supports. He has also, I would say, voted against the national school food program to feed hungry children. Of course, he does not think much of that program.
With many people feeling the strain of rising everyday expenses, our government will continue to take responsible and pragmatic approaches. While conservatives will focus on slogans and social media clips, we are tackling long-term structural challenges. We are acting now to support all Canadians.
The hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford not being present to raise during Adjournment Proceedings the matter for which notice had been given, the notice is deemed withdrawn.
[Translation]
Pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been withdrawn, and the House will now resolve itself into committee of the whole to study all votes under Department of Finance in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2027.
[English]
I do now leave the chair for the House to resolve itself into committee of the whole.
Government Orders
[Business of Supply]
[English]
Business of Supply
Department of Finance—Main Estimates, 2026-27
(Consideration in committee of the whole of all votes under Department of Finance in the main estimates, Ms. Alexandra Mendès in the chair)
The House is now in committee of the whole to consider all votes under Department of Finance in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2027.
Today's debate is a general one on all votes under the Department of Finance. The first round will begin with the official opposition, followed by the government and the Bloc Québécois. After that, we will follow the usual proportional rotation.
[Translation]
Each member recognized by the Chair will be allocated 15 minutes. These periods may be used for both debate and for posing questions. Should members wish to use this time to make a speech, it can last a maximum of 10 minutes, leaving at least five minutes for questions to the minister or the parliamentary secretary acting on behalf of the minister.
When members are recognized, they shall indicate to the Chair how the 15-minute period will be used, in other words, what portion will be used for speeches and what portion for questions and answers. Members who wish to share their time with one or more members shall indicate it to the Chair.
When the time is to be used for questions and comments, the minister's or the parliamentary secretary's response should reflect approximately the time taken to pose the question, provided that at least 15 seconds are allotted to each response, since this time will count toward the time originally allotted to the member.
[English]
The period of time for the consideration of the estimates in committee of the whole this evening shall be extended beyond four hours, as needed, to include a minimum of 16 periods of 15 minutes each. I also wish to indicate that, in committee of the whole, comments should be addressed to the Chair. I ask for everyone's co-operation in upholding all established standards of decorum, parliamentary language and behaviour.
In addition, pursuant to order made earlier today, no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.
[Translation]
At the end of the time allotted for debate, and when no more members wish to speak, whichever comes first, the committee shall rise and the House shall immediately adjourn to the next sitting day. We may now begin the debate.
[English]
The hon. member for Calgary Crowfoot.
Madam Chair, for clarity, I am speaking for five minutes and then sharing my time with the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk and the member for Calgary East, for five minutes each, after I have concluded.
In 2015, the minister's government promised to run modest deficits that would fund unprecedented infrastructure spending and would allow the budget to balance itself, as they put it. Instead, they created a structural deficit for 10 years, and, 10 years later, they have broken the same promise that they made back in 2015 about infrastructure.
Perhaps tonight will be the night when the minister will finally answer this question and tell me in what year the budget will be balanced.
Madam Chair, it is a real pleasure to be spending the whole evening with my colleagues. My colleague will be happy to learn, because I know he will be very interested, that we made generational investments in infrastructure, housing, productivity and innovation. The plan of Canada, according to the International Monetary Fund, is the way forward in order to create growth. I am sure tonight my colleague will be very happy to know that the country is going to be building the strongest economy in the G7 and that we have made generational investments in infrastructure.
Madam Chair, the minister has not answered the question. He has just repeated the same promise that they have been breaking since 2015.
Canada's current interest costs for this year are $54 billion. Is that amount more or less than the current federal health transfer?
Madam Chair, my colleague will be happy to learn, because tonight is a learning exercise for my colleagues, that in fact the percentage, when we look at the debt charge of Canada, is pretty low by historical standards. It is close to 2%. If we look at the historical figures in the 1990s, they were around 6%. I would say that Canada is in a very strong fiscal position.
Madam Chair, Canadians are not going to learn anything tonight if the minister will not answer any questions.
The interest on Canada's debt is projected to rise by 50%, from $54 billion to $81 billion, in 2030-31. Is that more than future health transfers are budgeted for?
Madam Chair, as I said, it is going to be interesting for Canadians to learn that the projected debt charge, as a percentage of GDP, for 2026-27 will be 1.7%. That is far below the peak of 6.5% that Canadians faced in the 1990s.
What I am saying is that we are on a very solid fiscal track.
Madam Chair, that is another non-answer.
The per family debt charge is about $3,400 right now, this year. How much does he think a Canadian family can afford to spend on interest on the federal debt?
Madam Chair, again, it is going to be a very interesting evening. I look forward to the question because, in fact, what I was saying is that the debt charges, as a percentage of GDP, are not only lower than they were in the 1990s, but they are below the historical average of 40 years, which was 3.2%. I think the member should be happy to see that the country is on a very solid fiscal track.
Madam Chair, they have been claiming for years that there would be a declining debt-to-GDP ratio, but there is not. The debt-to-GDP ratio is rising.
Is the debt-to-GDP ratio higher this year than last year, yes or no?
Madam Chair, the member will be pleased to hear that the International Monetary Fund just stated that Canada has the strongest fiscal position in the G7. Actually, we have the second-fastest growth in the G7.
I am sure that my colleague will be happy to report to his constituents that the country is on a good fiscal track.
Madam Chair, the answer is that the debt-to-GDP ratio went up, even though that is the fiscal anchor that they have been claiming for most of the last 10 years. They have broken their fiscal anchor.
How much interest per household does he think Canadian families can afford for his debt?
Madam Chair, I will be happy to remind my colleague, who is a learned member of the House, that we have two fiscal anchors. One is a declining deficit-to-GDP ratio. The other is to balance the operating budget with revenues by 2028-29. Those are the two fiscal anchors of the Government of Canada.
Madam Chair, those are new ones. He has discharged and cut loose every anchor that they have assigned for themselves. What is going to be their new fiscal anchor they make up next year when this fiscal anchor is cut loose like so many before it?
Madam Chair, in the spirit of teaching my colleague some of the facts, let me quote Kevin Page. He said, “The hard target of a balanced operating budget in 2028‑29 will put more constraints on the government than would fiscal rules tied to changes in the size of the economy”. This is coming from Kevin Page.
[Translation]
Madam Chair, I am going to start with a positive question. We are very pleased to see that the minister was able to reach an agreement with the City of Laval concerning the scandal over the Canada Revenue Agency, which had demanded $1 million from Laval taxpayers in connection with the former corrupt mayor. Ten years later than Revenu Québec, the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, finally came to terms with the City of Laval.
Why did the minister refuse to come testify before the committee for two and a half months?
Madam Chair, I would be pleased to come testify in committee. However, as my colleague said, I made a commitment to find a solution in the interest of the people of Laval. That is exactly what we did, to the satisfaction of the mayor of Laval, Mr. Boyer, who personally expressed his appreciation for the work we accomplished together to resolve this situation.
Madam Chair, it took the Liberal government's CRA a decade to do the right thing, which was a decade longer than it took Revenu Québec.
The minister was elected at the same time as me, in 2015. The Prime Minister put him in cabinet almost immediately, which means that he has been one of the senior ministers in the Liberal administration for the past decade. That makes him one of the top architects of the debt that grew to over $1 trillion over that decade.
Can the minister tell us what the interest on the debt costs Canada every year?
Madam Chair, I would like to thank my colleague for saying such kind things about me. It is true that we were both elected at the same time, in 2015. He is right. I have always worked to advance the interests of Canadian citizens. It is true that, during those years, we presented a generational investment plan to grow the economy and have the strongest economy in the G7. That work continues now that I am the Minister of Finance.
Madam Chair, the minister seems to forget that he was elected in 2015 on a promise to run three small deficits and achieve a zero deficit in 2019. He did none of that. On the contrary, even when the global economy was doing well, the government did not set any money aside. That would have been the right thing to do. However, the man with a trillion-dollar debt, that is one thousand billion dollars in debt, cannot tell us how much the interest on that debt costs.
He talks about intergenerational investments. Does he realize that our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will be paying for this government's debt and reckless deficits?
Madam Chair, my colleague will be pleased to see that, in fact, the projected deficit is $11 billion lower than what was projected in budget 2025. Under my leadership, we have presented a deficit that is $11 billion lower. Agencies around the world have seen that Canada has taken a serious position on taxation, that we are fiscally responsible and that we are acting with the rigour that the current situation demands.
Madam Chair, what a shame that the minister seems to have such a selective memory. Just 15 months ago, his predecessor said the deficit would be $31 billion. What is the deficit now? It is $68 billion.
However, the good news is that the minister has eliminated the excise tax. That is a good thing. On the other hand, we wanted more. I can understand that, for a Liberal, eliminating a tax is a giant leap forward. For Canadian families, however, these are small steps. What we want is to go further.
Why did the government put the brakes on tax cuts when it was off to a good start?
We would have liked the government to follow our plan.
Madam Chair, my colleague is an experienced member of Parliament for whom I have the utmost respect, and he knows it. Two-thirds of the $7 billion in additional revenue we have received has been allocated to help Canadians. Like him, I know that the primary concern for Canadians is affordability. It is the cost of housing, the cost of food and the cost of gas. He will be pleased to announce to his constituents in Quebec City that we have taken action on all three fronts to make life more affordable for Canadians.
Madam Chair, I would like to say to everyone listening to us right now that not every cent they are paying in GST is going to federal services. It is paying down the interest on the debt that the man with a trillion-dollar debt has racked up over the last 10 years.
I have one final question about the Quebec City region. When will the federal government provide the funding promised for the tramway?
Madam Chair, I am pleased to tell everyone in Quebec City who is listening that this Minister of Finance, together with the Prime Minister, has managed to reduce the deficit by $11 billion for the current year. I think people understand that we have adopted a fiscal stance that is reasonable, disciplined and as rigorous as the current situation demands. This should give confidence to all Canadians, including, of course, the people of Quebec City.
[English]
Madam Chair, it has been 965 days since the finance minister said that the price of food would go down within weeks. It has gone up 20% since then. Why?
Madam Chair, the member is a very experienced member of this House. He would probably know that there have been a number of challenges with respect to the supply chain and that we are living through the most important energy crisis we have seen. Therefore, we have seen inflation, not only in Canada, in food prices, but—
Madam Chair, it was three years ago that the finance minister himself promised that.
Does the minister understand that Liberal taxes, including the industrial carbon tax and the clean fuel standard, make the cost of food go up, yes or no?
Madam Chair, my colleague will be happy to report to his constituents that on June 5 the Canada groceries and essentials benefit will be helping 12 million Canadians. I am sure that among these 12 million Canadians there are constituents of my colleague's.
This is the kind of boost that families need, and I expect my colleague will vote for Bill C-30 to put that measure in place.
Madam Chair, does the minister understand that Liberal taxes put onto the cost of fuel, including on the trucker, the farmer and the people who sell the food, end up getting paid by the person buying the food, yes or no?
Madam Chair, my colleague would understand that this is exactly why we suspended the excise fuel tax of 10¢, and four cents for diesel. We understand, obviously, that this is going to have an impact for consumers. That is the kind of measure that the International Monetary Fund has been calling very targeted and time-limited in the way that we have proposed it.
Madam Chair, the minister acknowledges that removing the excise tax makes the cost of fuel and food go down. Would he agree that removing the clean fuel standard and the industrial carbon tax would also make the cost of food go down, yes or no?
Madam Chair, I assume the member will be very happy to vote for Bill C-30.
For those who are watching, this is the bill that will, in effect, put in law the suspension of the excise fuel tax, which is going to be very relevant for Canadians across the country as we walk into summer.
Madam Chair, the Liberals promised to build 500,000 homes this year. Their own housing agency says they will only build 280,000 homes. When will they build 500,000 homes?
Madam Chair, my colleague will be happy to hear that we have made generational investments in housing, and in particular with respect to affordable housing. He will know about Build Canada Homes. This is the agency that is going to build more affordable homes in this country, and that is going to be a key pillar of affordability for families.
Madam Chair, the PBO says that Build Canada Homes will only build 5,200 homes per year. Is that close to the 500,000 homes they promised, yes or no?
Madam Chair, my colleague will be happy to hear that Build Canada Homes, this new agency, has been tasked to build all the affordable homes that are going to be needed in this country. This is a game-changer for Canadians. It is a pillar of affordability, and we have made generational investments in housing.
Madam Chair, the minister's own housing agency says that 480,000 homes need to be built per year, over the next few years, to restore home affordability. The Liberals promised 500,000 homes per year. Their own housing agency says that home starts will decrease over the next few years, with a max of 280,000 homes per year.
When will the Liberals build 500,000 homes per year?
Madam Chair, the member will be happy to hear that the housing measures from 2026 to 2030‑31 will total $56 billion. This is probably one of the largest investments in housing that we have seen in this country. This is going to help families, because we know that housing is a pillar of affordability.
Madam Chair, the minister has not answered a single question tonight.
The Liberals promised 500,000 homes per year. When will they deliver 500,000 homes per year, just the date?
Madam Chair, my colleague may not like my answer, but I know Canadians would like to know that housing is a priority for the government. We have made generational investments, and $56 billion will be invested during this fiscal framework to support housing in this country. As we understand, it is a pillar of affordability.
Madam Chair, does the minister agree with the Prime Minister that affordability is the best it has been in a decade, even though grocery prices are up by $1,000 this year and 2.2 million Canadians are going to a food bank?
Madam Chair, what I would say is that affordability is top of mind for the government, and it is top of mind for Canadians. We understand. That is why we are acting on the price of homes, the price of food and the price of gas.
Madam Chair, I have the opportunity to speak before you tonight, which I would say is a great privilege.
[Translation]
I want to thank my colleagues for being here this evening and for taking the time to debate important issues, because we are talking about the budget, after all. We are talking about Canada's public finances.
I also want to thank the deputy chair, who plays a very important role in Canada's democracy. I thank the Chair for giving me the opportunity to speak this evening.
Needless to say, as some members have mentioned, Canada, like many other countries, is going through a time of tremendous upheaval.
[English]
From new geopolitical dynamics to supply chain disruptions to rapid technological breakthroughs, including in artificial intelligence, the world is changing at an unprecedented speed, scope and scale. Canada, quite simply, must adapt to thrive. That is exactly why the government presented generational investments in budget 2020, and we have continued the work in the spring economic update. We understand that this is the time to be bold. This is the time to build at a speed and scale not seen in generations. This is a time to build Canada strong, and that is exactly what we are proposing to Canadians.
Last year, as the Chair will recall, because she and my colleagues were here, I was honoured to rise in the House to present budget 2025, which laid out our government's ambitious plan to act swiftly to make and unlock generational investments to foster vibrant communities, empower Canadians, protect our country and build the strongest economy in the G7. I am happy to report that we are on track to build the strongest economy in the G7.
Last month, we built upon that progress with the 2026 spring economic update, which further outlined our plan to build a stronger and more resilient Canadian economy, purpose-built to meet the unique challenges of the 21st century and the very challenging times that we are facing in the world. Many of these initiatives were, of course, reflected in the main estimates tabled this year. I am honoured to join you today to discuss the main estimates and our bold plan to build a stronger, more independent, more resilient Canada, to deliver for Canadians and to ensure that growth is felt by Canadians across the country. This is about building a Canada for all.
[Translation]
Today, thanks to the 2026 spring economic update, we are staying on the right track. We are building homes and carrying out major projects across the country quickly and sustainably. We are creating more opportunities for our workers and for young Canadians. We are promoting stronger, safer communities. Together, we can build a stronger Canada for all. I see that my colleagues are smiling. I understand why, because everyone in this place wants to work to build a stronger, more resilient Canada.
[English]
First, I want to highlight the Canada strong fund, Canada's own sovereign wealth fund designed to deliver generational infrastructure and nation-building projects and ultimately to grow wealth for future generations. This new fund will invest in key strategic Canadian projects and companies alongside the private sector, creating jobs, supporting innovation and making Canada more competitive.
What is more, Canadians themselves will have the opportunity to invest in the fund, sharing in its success. I was pleased to see the international press say that Canada was creating its own sovereign wealth fund, but that, in a very Canadian way, people would be able to invest and share in the growth that we will see in this country. Like us, Canadians believe in Canadian workers and in the Canadian economy. By taking part directly in our shared successes by investing in the fund, Canadians will be given the opportunity to share in our growth and contribute to the country we are building together.
Because we know that Canadian workers will be the ones who ultimately build the strongest economy in the G7, our government is also launching team Canada strong, a nationwide effort to recruit, train and hire 80,000 to 100,000 new Red Seal skilled trade workers across the country. This innovative program will provide young people in this country with a clear path into the skilled trades and related careers in housing, infrastructure and defence.
We are offering Canadians pursuing apprenticeships up to $16,000 in weekly top-ups during the training, a $5,000 completion bonus and direct incentives for employers, including up to $10,000 in wage subsidies per apprentice. That is what I would call a win-win-win approach, and that is why we are proud to announce this to Canadians.
[Translation]
To support young people, our government is making education more affordable by extending the increase in Canada student grants and interest-free Canada student loans for another year. This will benefit thousands of students across the country.
The goal is not just to create jobs, but to create new opportunities for young Canadians to serve their country, build a fulfilling life and shape their collective future.
[English]
Second, I would like to note that the spring economic statement of 2026 highlights many measures to support Canadians at a time when global cost pressures are weighing heavily on households here in the country and among our G7 partners. From permanently removing the consumer carbon price and suspending the fuel excise tax until Labour Day and making groceries and essentials more affordable to getting 6.5 million Canadians dental coverage, our government has been relentlessly focused on making life more affordable for Canadians and providing relief where people need it most.
That includes significant progress in making housing more affordable. Colleagues were asking questions and we are on track to make housing more affordable, which is indeed a key pillar of overall cost-of-living stability. Home prices in Canada are now down 21%, and rents are down 8% nationally. For many families, this is starting to translate into real relief.
[Translation]
The spring economic update builds on the progress made through Build Canada Homes and even includes new investments aimed at increasing the housing supply, reducing costs and helping more Canadians access safe and affordable housing. This includes cutting red tape to build homes faster, supporting innovation in construction, accelerating over $7 billion in low-cost financing, boosting the housing supply, and protecting construction jobs across Canada in partnership with the provinces and territories.
Our government is helping those most in need by expanding support for people experiencing homelessness and ensuring that survivors of domestic violence have access to safe housing.
[English]
The government is also continuing to strengthen Canada's independence in key sectors and working more closely with our trusted partners to protect our security and our resilience.
In 2025-26, we invested more than $63 billion in the Canadian Armed Forces, the single largest year-on-year increase in defence investments in this country, as part of our ambitious plan to rebuild, rearm and reinvest in our armed forces. I want to say that we want to thank them. I think I can speak on behalf of all my colleagues in the House tonight. We want to thank the men and women in uniform for their service to this country. I think they deserve a big round of applause.
Thanks to these investments, Canada is now on a path to meet the NATO defence investment pledge of investing 5% of GDP in defence by 2035. These and future investments in Canada's sovereignty will be guided by Canada's first-ever defence industrial strategy and support the more timely and transparent acquisition of military goods through the new Defence Investment Agency.
[Translation]
Obviously, I have a lot to say this evening, because what we are presenting to Canadians is an ambitious plan. Our plan addresses the most pressing issue of the moment, the urgent need for action. I attended a G7 meeting last week, and I can say that the G7 countries are united in their desire to take action. We sometimes hear about the fog of uncertainty that has descended on the world. What I can say is that Canada is like a beacon in that fog, with strong institutions, a generational plan and investments that will grow the economy.
[English]
I can report to Canadians that Canada is on the right path. We will build Canada strong. We will be protecting our communities. We will empower Canadians. The best thing is that we are just getting started to work, and we will continue to fight for Canadians every single day.
Madam Chair, I appreciate many of the words the Minister of Finance has put on the record this evening.
I want to pick up on a couple of points. As a government and as the Minister of Finance, we have seen action on two fronts. One is in terms of building Canada strong, a Canada that is there for all Canadians, and there are many examples, some of which the Minister of Finance has referenced. The other issue is, of course, taking a look at the issue of affordability. We all know that affordability is a very important issue for Canadians. Again, what we have seen through the Department of Finance is some very specific action to support Canadians on the issue of affordability. I would like to expand very quickly on those two points.
When I think of the affordability issue, I think of the groceries and essentials benefit. It is an excellent example. In the month of June, there is going to be substantial payments going to, I believe, somewhere around 11 million Canadians. I think that will help on the affordability issue. Also, there has been a great deal of discussion, and the government has come forward on the excise tax on gasoline with what is about a 10¢-a-litre break for Canadians. The minister made reference to the summer months. We are going to see a lot of Canadians staying in Canada, touring and taking a look at the different regions of the country by vehicle. The 10¢ reduction is very helpful on the issue of affordability.
As we provide affordability programs, and I should have also mentioned the national school nutritional program for 400,000 children, at the same time we are investing in building a stronger Canada by looking at the national sovereign wealth fund, which is something the minister has made reference to. It is a fund that is going to assist with billions of dollars of investment and growth.
I am wondering if the minister can provide his perspective in terms of supporting Canadians on the affordability file alongside building that stronger Canada.
Madam Chair, I thank the member for providing a very good summary to the House of the affordability measures we have presented. It is right to say that affordability is top of mind for the government. I would say it is top of mind for Canadians. The three issues when we talk about affordability with people are the cost of housing, the cost of food and the cost of gas.
The good news is that we have been acting on these three fronts. We have made generational investments to provide more affordable housing in this country, because we know this is the first pillar of affordability. Finding a home that is secure and affordable is the first pillar for Canadians and their families, which is why we have put forward a generational investment. This investment has been applauded by institutions like the International Monetary Fund. I will tell members that when I was in Washington, they mentioned that only two countries of the G7 can do this. They are Germany and Canada. Why? It is because these are the two countries that have the fiscal capacity, they have a AAA credit rating and if they make the right choices, this will support growth and at the same time tackle affordability. Therefore, housing has been one of the key pillars.
The second thing is groceries. We have seen the inflation when it comes to groceries. We understand that this is a real challenge for Canadians across the nation, which is why we did not wait. We decided to act with the groceries and essentials benefit, which is going to help. My colleague said it would help 11 million people, but it is even more. There are 12 million Canadians who are going to receive that boost.
This is very important because it is a 50% boost this year, but it is also bridged. We understand that we need to bonify the Canada groceries and essentials benefit so that Canadians will still have a bridge. We understand that when it comes to food inflation, not only do we need to do that but we also need to invest in structural things in order to grow more in Canada. That is why, on one end, we are helping people now, but we are also making structural investments so that we can grow more food in Canada and become more resilient. At the same time, we are pushing for competition, because competition in this sector and other sectors is the best way to provide better prices for Canadians.
[Translation]
Madam Chair, I thank my colleagues for being here. I send my regards to the minister and thank him for being here. We always appreciate him.
Minister, officials from the Department of Finance and the Department of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities gave us a briefing on Bill C‑26, which you yourself tabled. We were reassured. We understood that the bill would not impose any conditions on the transfer of $1.7 billion to improve housing supply in Quebec. However, in the legislation, the minister has the discretionary power to establish and allocate the amounts as he sees fit.
Can the minister confirm that he will not impose any conditions that would infringe on Quebec's areas of jurisdiction and that the money will be distributed in such a way as to ensure that Quebec receives its fair share?
Madam Chair, I would like to begin by thanking my colleague for being here this evening to ask his important question.
I have already been in touch with the Government of Quebec and the other provincial governments to inform them of the amount that will be allocated. In the spirit of co-operative federalism, at the request of our provincial colleagues, we allowed the provinces to use these amounts for housing within existing provincial programs.
What I can say to my colleague this evening to reassure him is that the amount that is allocated to Quebec was based on a formula that Quebec fully understands. At the same time, we worked together to ensure that the funding could be quickly put to use in Quebec. Our colleagues in Quebec are very pleased.
I would like to remind members that they must direct their comments to the Chair.
The hon. member for Mirabel.
Madam Chair, thank you for reining in the minister's enthusiasm. I think he needs that from time to time.
Minister, your government decided to—
Madam Chair, I also need reining in.
The government has decided to cut funding for agriculture and agri-food research, notably by closing the Quebec Research Centre in the riding of the Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement and Quebec Lieutenant. This cut is being criticized by the entire agricultural community, and it will hinder productivity gains and research.
Where in the budget are the funds to allow us to reopen this research centre immediately?
Madam Chair, my colleague will be pleased to know that, when we conducted our exercise to identify $60 billion in savings within the federal government, we took great care to protect investments in research and innovation.
My colleague can rest assured that we have protected research and development because we know it is important not only for our communities but also for the future of the country.
Madam Chair, the minister has just told us that there is not a penny in these estimates to reopen the agricultural research centre in the Quebec City region. Farmers in Mirabel and elsewhere will remember that.
I would like to know where, in these estimates, the additional $37 million needed for the independent local news fund is to be found. Our francophone media outlets are in crisis, and that money would enable them to weather the storm more effectively, given that their funding has just been cut following a CRTC decision.
Madam Chair, I am pleased to say that the hon. member will see from the estimates that have been tabled that the measure he is referring to is indeed included in the economic statement I presented in the spring. He will be able to see for himself, in the estimates tabled in the House, the amounts that will be allocated specifically to support this program for journalists.
Madam Chair, on budget day, the minister no doubt appreciated the way opposition members demonstrated in a compelling and humorous fashion how the government lacked ambition when it came to supporting the media.
The Prime Minister said he refused to pay an entry fee to negotiate a trade deal with President Trump, but all it took was a post on President Trump's Truth Social for the Prime Minister to decide to repeal the digital services tax.
I would like to know when he will reinstate the digital services tax so we can provide more adequate arts and culture funding.
When will the government reinstate the digital services tax instead of capitulating to the U.S. President?
Madam Chair, I am sure my colleague knows that, under Canada's free trade agreement with the United States and Mexico, 85% of Canadian exports have exemptions and that Canada has one of lowest tariff rates overall, at around 5%.
We will always be here to stand up for the interests of our industries, including culture, of course, as well as film. We are here to stand up for all industries and workers. We will continue to do this for every sector.
Here is what I can tell my colleague: He can rest assured that we are here to defend the interests of all industries currently being affected by our neighbours' unjust tariffs.
Madam Chair, the Minister of Finance is well aware that his Prime Minister bent the knee to Trump and paid the entry fee to negotiate. That is why he is avoiding the question. Now, in Bill C‑31, the government is once again bending the knee to President Trump by amending the Global Minimum Tax Act to exempt American companies.
Does it trouble the minister that this coincides with a decision by Brookfield, the Prime Minister's baby, to move its headquarters to the United States?
Madam Chair, I am trying to understand the meaning of the question.
What I can say is that my role as Minister of Finance and the government's role is to work in the interest of building the strongest economy in the country, standing up for the interests of workers and industries in this country, and certainly making generational investments that lead to economic growth across the country.
Madam Chair, again, the minister calls bowing to the U.S. President's demands generational investments.
It is worth noting that the government has asked Statistics Canada, the agricultural research centres, the National Research Council of Canada, the Canada Council for the Arts, and the National Film Board of Canada to tighten their belts, yet it has made cuts while finding money for the Governor General. A full one-third of a million dollars has been allocated to the Office of the Secretary to the Governor General.
I would like to know whether the minister or his government intends to ask the Governor General and her office to conduct research on agriculture.
Madam Chair, I think the people watching us have been tightening their belts for quite some time now. I think it was perfectly normal for the government to undertake an exercise that will save $60 billion and tighten its belt. I think it is time for us to tighten our belts in Ottawa too. That is exactly what I was able to do with my colleagues. We identified $60 billion in savings to streamline the federal government's operations.
Madam Chair, once again, he is cutting funding for science, agriculture and the National Film Board of Canada, but he managed to find one-third of a million dollars for the Governor General. Does he think the Governor General and her office now have the resources to produce a nice film for us about the $7,000 shoes the Governor General just might buy with that money?
I would like to remind members that they need to respect this country's head of state.
The hon. Minister of Finance.
Madam Chair, thank you for that reminder.
To correct the statement made by my colleague, for whom I have a great deal of respect, I can say that we have, in fact, protected the security-related investments included in the budget. We also protected our defence budgets. We have protected budgets in areas such as research and development, because we are well aware of the importance of those sectors. The same goes for indigenous services. The idea was to protect certain departments. That is what we—
Madam Chair, the Standing Orders allow members, during the consideration of the estimates, to ask the minister about the expenses of the Office of the Secretary to the Governor General, which are on page 6 of the estimates. That is what I just did, having given myself that right with all due respect for the head of state.
Now, through a unanimous motion, the National Assembly has asked for $733 million to compensate it for the influx of asylum seekers, which the federal government is supposed to be responsible for. Naturally, I will not ask the minister where that money is in the estimates. I assume that it cannot be found anywhere, like most of Quebec's requests.
What does the minister think a motion unanimously adopted by the 125 elected members of the National Assembly is worth?
Madam Chair, I have an excellent relationship with my colleagues in the Quebec government, and this is one of the topics we are discussing. I can reassure my Bloc Québécois colleague that communications with the Government of Quebec are going very well. I have frequent discussions with my Quebec counterparts. We will continue to work in the interest of Quebeckers and all Canadians.
I think that my colleague should be reassured this evening to know that the Minister of Finance is on very good terms with his colleagues in Quebec City.
Madam Chair, we know the Minister of Finance. He is very nice and gets along with everyone, but when it comes time to comply with the unanimous requests of the National Assembly, he disappears. That is what we see in these estimates: The amount is not there, just like—I am guessing, though I wonder why—the $814 million stolen from Quebeckers when the Liberals bought votes in the last election by sending out rebate cheques in seven provinces for a carbon tax that people had not even paid. The National Assembly is unanimously requesting that $814 million. Its 125 elected officials are unanimous.
Where is that money in these estimates?
Madam Chair, obviously I object to the wording of my colleague's question. I believe the language goes far beyond his intention, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt.
He knows that we will always be here to work in the best interests of all Canadians, including Quebeckers. I myself am proud to represent one of the largest ridings in Quebec, Saint-Maurice—Champlain. I want to salute the people of Saint-Maurice—Champlain who are listening to us tonight and thank them for allowing me to serve them here in Ottawa.
Madam Chair, the minister is allocating $710 million in additional funding to Alto, which is still officially called VIA HFR after a project that was scrapped at the last minute.
I would like to know whether he is aware of how much of that amount will be used to pay for the expropriation of land, particularly in Mirabel, and how much of that amount will be used for Alto's advertising blitz, as this company has effectively become a communications firm.
Madam Chair, I believe it is common knowledge that there is a connection between this company and me. What I can say is that this government is proud to be making generational investments in infrastructure from coast to coast to coast.
I believe my colleague has noted that some of the major projects we need to carry out across this country include investments in housing, investments in infrastructure and investments in innovation and productivity. That is exactly what we have done.
On a cash basis, we are talking about close to $450 billion over five years. These are truly generational investments.
Madam Chair, if he considers infrastructure so important, why did his government decide to cut $5 billion over 10 years from the public transit fund?
On the contrary, Madam Chair, I would say that this government is making significant investments. More than $50 billion was allocated in the last budget.
The amounts that we discussed with our provincial counterparts were mentioned. My colleague will be pleased because I have a confession to make tonight: At Quebec's request, we have even decided to invest in health infrastructure, which was a request—
Madam Chair, I am very protective of my time. I guard it as if it were a pearl.
We note that, in the budget, $229 million has been cut from Statistics Canada. I understand that the government has decided to invest elsewhere in science and research, but the last person to make such significant cuts to Statistics Canada was Stephen Harper, as part of his effort to ensure that Parliament and parliamentarians could develop public policies with fewer open data.
What does that say about his commitment to science?
Madam Chair, what this means is that everyone can find ways to improve efficiency. As I believe I have said, citizens have been tightening their belts for quite some time. It is only natural that we also ask federal institutions to tighten theirs.
I know my colleague is familiar with a tool called technology. There are technologies available today that allow us to do things better and faster. We are often able to achieve efficiency gains like the ones we found at Statistics Canada.
Madam Chair, the minister increased the funding allocated to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner by 2.5%, or approximately $225,000.
I would like him to tell me what proportion of this additional spending will be used to monitor the Prime Minister's conflicts of interest.
Madam Chair, as members are well aware, the Ethics Commissioner is independent from the government. He is an officer of Parliament who does the important job of advising my colleagues here and fulfilling that role.
The Ethics Commissioner has the resources he needs to fulfill his important role in our democracy.
Madam Chair, speaking of resources allocated in the estimates, the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec and steelworkers are calling for a wage subsidy to help maintain the employment relationship between employers and workers who have been hit hard by the new tariff calculation.
From what I understand, not a single penny of the budget will be allocated to a wage subsidy program. The minister knows that we think that the measures that have already been announced are inadequate.
Even though he will not answer, I would like to know exactly how much of the budget is allocated to the wage subsidy that the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec is calling for.
Madam Chair, my colleague will be pleased to learn that we have invested several billion dollars to support workers during these challenging times.
My colleague knows this very well, as he is from Quebec. We have seen many industries affected by the unfair tariffs imposed by our American neighbours.
The government's response was to help our workers and our industries, particularly Quebec's lumber and aluminum industries.
I think that my colleague should acknowledge what we have done to help workers.
Madam Chair, I would add to my colleague's statement by saying that you are deeply appreciated by everyone in the House.
Madam Chair, I rise today to speak to Bill C-30, the spring economic update 2026 implementation act. I will also address a fundamental issue for our country, our regions and the people we represent, which is to build a strong, more resilient and more accessible Canada for all.
We are currently at a hinge moment. The world we live in is undergoing profound change. It is more uncertain, more fragmented and marked by geopolitical tensions, supply chain disruptions and increased pressure on the cost of living. For many families, these realities are not just theoretical. They are felt every day, when shopping for groceries, searching for a place to live, or managing a household budget.
In my riding of Beauport—Limoilou and across the country, people are under immense pressure. Groceries cost more, affordable housing is harder to find, and every dollar counts. When an organization like Patro Roc-Amadour in Limoilou sees an increase in requests for food assistance, that is not just a statistic. That is a human reality.
In this context, our responsibility as parliamentarians is clear. We must act ambitiously, effectively and with discipline. We must focus on those factors that we can control, such as the strength of our economy, our country's ability to invest and, most of all, Canadians' quality of life.
The spring economic update is closely aligned with those principles. It offers a structured, coherent and future-oriented approach. It strikes a crucial balance between building more, strengthening our economy and easing pressure on the cost of living. Canada leads the G7 in per capita foreign direct investment inflows. To be specific, that is $1,231 per person in the first three quarters of 2025 alone, which is almost twice as much as what the United States took in. Considerable progress has been made over the past year. Major projects have been launched, drawing significant investment and creating tens of thousands of jobs.
In my riding, Beauport—Limoilou, these issues are very real. We are smack dab in the middle of a strategic region for trade, transportation and logistics. Our proximity to the St. Lawrence, our infrastructure and our geographic location make us a key player in Canadian supply chains. Every investment in commercial infrastructure, every initiative to improve the flow of trade and every strategic project has a direct impact on us. That means jobs, contracts for our businesses and a more dynamic and resilient local economy.
In addition to infrastructure, the strength of our economy and our environment is another important pillar. Yes, they can both appear in the same sentence. Those who know me know how much these two societal issues matter to me. They are inextricably linked to my values: economic development and the environment. All too often, people portray the economy and the environment as being incompatible, as if we had to choose between prosperity and protection, between growth and responsibility.
However, when Leger was conducting a survey in June 2023, while I was president of the Chambre de commerce et d'industrie de Québec, I insisted that one last simple but fundamental question be included: Should we always put economic development ahead of environmental issues or, conversely, should we always put environmental issues ahead of economic development, or alternatively, should both carry relatively equal weight in our decisions? The answer was clear: 66% of respondents, or two out of three people, said that economic development and environmental issues should have relatively equal weight in decision-making.
People are done with choosing between options. They want to move forward by having both. They want us to be ambitious enough to accomplish both.
Since that day, this idea has become more than just a thought exercise to me. It has become my mantra. Canada is in a position of strength. Our country is fortunate enough to have a highly skilled workforce, privileged access to international markets and rich deposits of strategic resources. We are one of the few countries to possess such a vast network of trade agreements that we have access to a significant portion of the global economy. This puts us in a good position despite the international uncertainty. We have to keep diversifying our markets, supporting our businesses and investing in strategic sectors to ensure our long-term growth.
Once again, this has a direct impact on my riding of Beauport—Limoilou. Our businesses, our workers and our young people are benefiting from all these opportunities. Let me be clear. Despite the progress, people's main concern remains the cost of living. For families in my riding, as for all families across the country, the reality is simple. Everyone wants to be able to afford groceries, put a roof over their heads and plan for the future with a modicum of security. That is why measures to improve affordability are essential. For a family in Beauport—Limoilou, this means real and tangible benefits. It means having a little more breathing room at the end of the month. It means being able to handle unexpected expenses. It simply means a little more stability. Measures aimed at accelerating housing construction, supporting innovation in the construction sector and making home ownership more attainable are essential. Every housing project and every initiative aimed at increasing supply directly contributes to improving the situation.
In Beauport—Limoilou, these measures are not abstract. They address real needs expressed by our constituents. We live in a world where the rules of the game are changing rapidly. Supply chains are being redefined, economic alliances are shifting and international tensions are directly influencing the market and costs.
As I said earlier, the cost of living remains the top priority for our constituents. Numerous concrete measures to help with that have been or will be put in place. I will give a few examples.
There will be a Canada groceries and essentials benefit of up to $1,890 for a family of four this year. More than 12 million Canadians will receive this support. A tax cut for the middle class is planned, providing savings of up to $840 for a dual-income family. The consumer carbon tax, amounting to around 18¢ per litre of gas, will be eliminated. There will be a temporary suspension of the excise tax, delivering savings of up to 10¢ per litre of gas. For a family in Beauport—Limoilou, these savings make a difference. They help pay for some of the grocery bill, reduce travel costs and create a little breathing room in a tight budget. This means a family can do their grocery shopping with a little less stress; a worker can count on a stable, well-paid job; a business can invest and grow; and a young person can picture a future here at home. This is exactly what we must continue to build: a Canada firmly rooted in its regions, a Canada that invests in its future, a Canada that supports its citizens, a strong Canada.
I now have a few questions for the Minister of Finance.
In my riding, Beauport—Limoilou, and across the country, housing remains a major concern, particularly for young families and workers. The 2026 spring economic update proposes several measures to accelerate residential construction, including low-cost loans, support for prefabricated housing, and investments in skilled trades.
These measures complement initiatives the government has already implemented, such as the launch of Build Canada Homes, measures to reduce and eliminate the GST for first-time buyers of new homes, efforts to expedite major projects, and investments aimed at increasing the country's construction capacity.
Could you explain how these measures work together to form a comprehensive economic capacity strategy, not only to build more housing, but also to develop the expertise and workforce needed to complete these projects more quickly and at a lower cost?
Although I cannot answer that question myself, I am sure that the hon. Minister of Finance would be pleased to do so.
The hon. Minister of Finance.
Madam Chair, in front of all the people of Quebec City who are watching us, I want to congratulate the member. I think that the people of Quebec City should be proud to have an MP like him. He has a strong grasp of the issues, not only in the greater Quebec City area and in the national capital, but also as the former president of the Quebec City chamber of commerce and industry. He is obviously someone with extensive knowledge of important issues and economic matters.
He spoke to a very important issue, the housing issue. This is true in Quebec City, true across Quebec, and true across the country. We know that housing is one of the pillars of affordability. I know my colleague understands that.
That is why we have made generational investments. That is why Build Canada Homes is going to play an important role, because we do need to build more housing, but what we really need to do is build more affordable housing. We know that housing is the first pillar of affordability for families.
People need to be able to find safe, affordable housing that is within their financial means and that is suited to their family's needs. I would like my colleague to know that I think he has a very good grasp of the reality, namely that housing has been the priority. The 2025 budget includes generational investments.
If we look at the total investments the government is making in housing for the five-year period from 2026-27 to 2030–31, we see that a total of $56 billion will be invested in various measures to help build more housing. We are already seeing results. Pressure has started to ease in major cities on house prices, as well as on the cost of housing.
I would like to congratulate my colleague on the speech he gave today in the House. It was a speech that demonstrated just how well he understands the issues that matter to the people in his constituency, to the people of Quebec City, but also to Canadians as a whole.
Madam Chair, I have another question for the Minister of Finance. The current global context of geopolitical and trade uncertainty has been mentioned a lot lately. Because of this context, the economic update emphasizes the importance of building a more resilient Canadian economy that is more focused on long-term investment. As a former president of the Chambre de commerce et d'industrie de Québec, I know how important predictability and stability are to our investors and entrepreneurs. These days, those are the words that come up most often when I meet with business leaders in my riding.
In this context, can the minister explain how the measures we have announced, particularly the Canada Strong fund, the Major Projects Office and new trade partnerships, are helping to build a long-term economic strategy and create lasting benefits for our businesses?
Madam Chair, I can imagine how pleased the people of Beauport—Limoilou are to hear their MP speak this evening. The Habs are not playing this evening, so I presume that a lot of people are watching their MP tonight. He is doing a great job. It is clear that, as the former president of the Chambre de commerce et d'industrie du Québec, he understands the issues. He is right. That is one thing that sometimes bothers me about my opposition colleagues. They forget that we are trying to navigate very uncertain economic times.
The IMF publishes an uncertainty index. Right now, the level of uncertainty is almost as high as it was after the Second World War. We are living in uncertain times. I think that, in times like these, we need to focus on what we can control, as the Prime Minister so rightly said.
What can we control? We can build the country; eliminate tariff barriers between the provinces; invest in our sovereignty, competitiveness and innovation; build safe and resilient communities across the country; and take fiscal measures that ensure that new investments made in Canada today benefit from the lowest tax rate in the G7. Canada is still a leader. We have the second-highest growth in the G7. Canada's economic growth is twice that of our counterparts in Europe, twice that of Great Britain—
[English]
Madam Chair, the Canadian auto sector is in serious crisis. We are facing thousands of job losses, and really that is a result of the U.S. tariffs and, frankly, a disastrous strategic policy by this Liberal government. If I look at 2020 to 2024, when the finance minister was, in fact, the industry minister, he signed off on up to $52 billion with Ontario for electric vehicle subsidies to artificially manufacture an electric vehicle supply chain in Canada. He made very big promises that this was going to deliver huge returns for Canada, yet many of those projects have failed to deliver. In fact, we have seen thousands of job losses because of the failure of those projects to go forward.
Can the minister admit that his electric vehicle strategy has been a failure?
Madam Chair, I would think it is exactly the opposite. I think electrification is still our north star. Let me just remind my colleague that when Tesla started business, it took 17 years to be profitable. When the Model T Ford was introduced, it was not a success. When we have been doing the same thing for 100 years with internal combustion engines and we switch technology after a century, it is quite normal that we have adjustment of technology, of consumer habits and of markets, and the position that has been taken by our neighbour to the south has affected this. We have seen delays in most of the projects in the G7, but I still believe in investing in the electric stack and in making sure that we have the ecosystem to build a car—
Madam Chair, yes I am, with the member for St. Albert—Sturgeon River.
I will just go through the list, because I think the finance minister may not be aware of some of the commitments that he made to Canadians that have since fallen through.
At Stellantis in Brampton, the plant laid off 3,000 workers. In fact it took those jobs, sent them to the U.S. and promised 5,000 jobs in the U.S. and $13 billion of U.S. investment, despite hundreds of millions of dollars flowing from the taxpayers through the Liberal government to retool Stellantis's facility in Brampton.
Northvolt in Quebec went bankrupt despite up to $3 billion of commitments from the taxpayer through the Liberal government. Ford in Oakville, despite millions of taxpayer dollars spent, cancelled its project and is now making gas-powered trucks. With Umicore for EV batteries in Loyalist Township, Ontario, millions of taxpayer dollars were spent, and the project was delayed indefinitely.
GM POSCO in Quebec is an EV battery plant. Phase 2 is now delayed despite well over $126 million from the taxpayer being spent. GM's CAMI facility is in Oshawa with $244 million from the taxpayer. Their BrightDrop EV project was shelved. Of course, Honda just recently suspended indefinitely a $15-billion electric vehicle project in Ontario, citing issues with global EV demand. The Liberals' cornerstone, the NextStar Energy facility that was supposed to build and be a world leader in electric car batteries, is no longer making EV batteries. In fact, the auto company involved with that, Stellantis, has pulled out altogether.
I will just ask the minister again if he feels his promises are being delivered on an electric vehicle supply chain in Canada?
Madam Chair, I am so happy to have that line of questioning. I almost hope that time would stop for a minute, because honestly, I could go on and on. Let us talk about Volkswagen, one of the largest automakers when we landed the gigafactory. It is the largest gigafactory outside of Europe of Volkswagen. In which country did they decide to put it? It was in Canada. It is amazing that, for the first time in Canada's history, we have attracted a European automaker to Canada.
I see in her smile that the member knows in her heart that we have done good things for the workers and that we have done good things for the industry. She is a good member. She is experienced. She will appreciate that—
Madam Chair, I do believe Volkswagen has written down $6 billion because of losses in electric vehicles. These CEOs are really showing what the market is demanding, and that is not electric vehicles. If we look at Stellantis, for example, it wrote down $26 billion on EV investments. Stellantis cited that its customers were not buying them, and that is why it just could not make a profit from EVs. Just in January, GM, which also received subsidies from the Liberal government and the taxpayer, announced $6 billion of write-downs as well on EV operations. They warned that more EV writedowns may be happening. In December, Ford announced nearly $20 billion of writedowns. It just keeps coming on EV productions. After years of trying to make them profitable, they are just not profitable.
Again, how can the minister stand here and say that the government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars and committed billions more, yet the CEOs themselves are saying that they cannot make a profit with these EVs?
Mr. Chair, it is a pleasure. I know the member knows the sector because she has New Flyer in her riding, which I am still looking forward to visiting because it is a great company, and it is also looking at electric buses.
My colleague will be happy to learn we were very disciplined. The Chair will remember this because I know he took note at the time. We were talking about production subsidies. This was on the back of the Inflation Reduction Act. In order to attract these investments, we were very smart, because we said we would only pay out when a number of units had been built and sold.
Members should be reassured that we have been good fiscal stewards. We have attracted investment. We have been very disciplined in how we structured these deals. I would say to my colleague that she should keep in mind that the electric stack is the—
Mr. Chair, if we listen to the CEOs who are writing down up to $25 billion because of EV losses and if we look at the thousands of job losses at the Brampton facility and the CAMI facility, I think it is very clear the EV market in North America is struggling. That is despite billions of dollars of promises from the Liberal government and hundreds of millions of dollars flowing. They are still struggling to make a go of it.
We see in North America that EVs do not really sell unless they are receiving huge subsidies from the taxpayers, so that is exactly what the Liberals are doing. They are doubling down on this failing strategy and have brought forward a $2.3-billion EV subsidy so that Canadian taxpayer dollars can go to those purchasing electric vehicles.
However, the reality is a lot of that money is not going to benefit the Canadian auto sector, which is struggling and needs the support. No, It is going to go to foreign-made electric vehicles, because Canada, despite all these promises and all this money, makes one, maybe two, eligible vehicles.
How is it that our auto sector is struggling, we are losing thousands of jobs, and the finance minister has brought forward a $2.3-billion subsidy that will largely go to benefit Donald Trump's American auto sector? How is he justifying benefiting the Trump auto sector when our auto sector needs the support?
Mr. Chair, let me talk about Volkswagen for a minute. I can see the smile coming back on the member's face, because Volkswagen will be one of the largest industrial sites in North America. She should be celebrating. I am sure she likes St. Thomas and southwestern Ontario as well. This is going to be an investment that is generational. If she had been with us when we announced that in St. Thomas, she would have seen the community members and the mayor. Everyone was there celebrating the fact that, for the first time in the history of Canada, we were able to attract a European manufacturer.
When I started that journey, people thought it would be impossible. We made it possible. Canadians understand that obviously a number of projects get delayed. It is not unique to Canada. This is what we are seeing in all the other G7 countries, but smart countries invest not only for now, but for the future. These investments will provide benefits to Canadians in the long term.
Mr. Chair, it is not necessarily other countries creating electric vehicle subsidies that benefit the American EV auto sector. Again, I do not understand. The minister did not answer my question about why our taxpayer dollars are going to benefit the American electric vehicle market when our auto sector needs support. He did not answer that at all, but we will move on.
It is very clear that the government is going to keep doubling down, but what is really shocking is that, despite all the struggles he is having in getting this electric vehicle strategy off the ground and despite billions of dollars that the government is trying to get out the door to attract this investment, the minister is bringing in 49,000 Chinese electric vehicles, which will represent a third of the electric vehicle market in this country. We cannot hope to compete with the subsidies that China provides.
How can he justify this when our auto sector is struggling?
Mr. Chair, I think everyone watching, particularly those in Oshawa and in southwestern Ontario, know that this minister and this government have been standing shoulder to shoulder with them. We can talk to the unions, the local union members, the industry partners and the manufacturers. We have stood with industry and workers every step of the way.
When I started in my previous job as minister of industry, we made investments to make sure that the sector would grow and adapt to the new reality. This is a fast-evolving market, but the investments we are making today need to take into account the future as well, and I think the member will recognize—
Mr. Chair, in March, the Liberals entered into a $200-million lease for a so-called spaceport with a company called Maritime Launch Services. The lease was backdated by one full year to April 1, 2025. Why?
Mr. Chair, my colleague is asking questions about space. I think space is an important industry in Canada. I hope he is going to have many more questions. As a former minister responsible for the space agency, I will have a lot to say about that.
Mr. Chair, in backdating the lease to April 2025, the Liberals handed Maritime Launch Services $20 million for no work and no value to taxpayers.
Why?
Mr. Chair, I know that my colleague is an experienced member of the chamber. He is making allegations. It is not the first time that he has made allegations like this, but I think he should be careful in his line of questioning.
At the same time, he should realize that the space industry is a great place to invest.
Mr. Chair, the lease was backdated to April 2025. An independent auditor's report revealed that Maritime Launch Services was not a going concern and that they were on the verge of bankruptcy.
Is the real reason the lease was backdated to bail out a nearly bankrupt company? Is that not what happened?
Mr. Chair, my colleague should, instead of going after the space industry, celebrate what we have achieved recently. We had our first Canadian to go around the moon. We went back to the moon as humanity. I think he should be proud. Instead of talking down a whole industry and talking down the space industry in the country, he should—
Mr. Chair, why would the Liberals enter into a lease for a so-called spaceport with a nearly bankrupt company?
Mr. Chair, he can talk down the industry. I will stand up for astronauts and the industry at every step of the way. If he was talking to our southern neighbour, he would understand that it is important for Canada to be able to launch from a Canadian site in order to get into a certain orbit, and we can do that in Canso, Nova Scotia.
Mr. Chair, I do not know if there is a space parliamentary committee but the hon. member would gain knowledge by talking to our American colleagues. He would learn that having a location in Canada is very strategic in order to launch into a particular orbit, and I can put him in touch with a few astronauts if he wants.
Mr. Chair, the answer is zero. They have zero track record of launching anything into space. The Liberals are paying Maritime Launch Services $20 million a year to lease land that Maritime Launch Services does not even own, which they are leasing from the Province of Nova Scotia for less than $14,000 a year. They are then flipping it to the federal government, earning a 1,300% profit.
Is that value for money, yes or no?
Mr. Chair, the member went after the space industry. He went after a launch site. He is now going after Nova Scotia. I do not know where this is going to end, but one thing I can tell members is that I am going to stand with the people of Nova Scotia. I am going to stand with our astronauts. I am going to stand with the space industry. I will remind him that I am happy to put him in touch with astronauts. He would learn that Canso is a particular site from which to launch and something we need in terms of national security.
Mr. Chair, to review the inconvenient facts for the minister, we have a nearly bankrupt company that has no track record of launching anything into space flipping Crown land back to the taxpayers for a 1,300% profit.
How does any of that make sense?
Mr. Chair, I am here to answer the questions from the member. What I find sad tonight is that there would be a way to celebrate the great success of our astronauts, the fact that we have launched a Canadian around the moon, the fact that we are investing in our space industry, the fact that we will have a launch site in Canada, and it is going to be part of the resilience of—
Mr. Chair, I will put it to the minister. This is about rewarding Liberal insiders.
Is that not what is going on?
Mr. Chair, I do not know why, when we do these exercises, we need to talk down industry, why we need to talk down Canadians, why we need to talk down what people are doing. Let us talk about the industry. This is an olive branch. I am happy to put him in touch with astronauts—
Mr. Chair, is it a coincidence that the formal Liberal premier of Nova Scotia sits on the advisory board and the chief lobbyist is none other than a former senior staffer to the current Minister of Justice?
How else does a nearly bankrupt—
Again, Mr. Chair, in the spirit of collaboration, I am extending an olive branch to my colleague to put him in touch with astronauts so that he can learn how a launch site in Canada would be in the best interest of Canada's national security.
Mr. Chair, it is my turn to talk about Bill C-30 and to talk about the economic context in which our economic update was presented recently and, especially, the Canadian economy. What we have witnessed in the last year at least, since I have been here, is that our colleagues from the official opposition have developed this skill of offering really simplistic solutions to what are highly complex and serious problems.
In that context, let us talk about the economic update. It was an economic update, not a budget, but of course, there were some fiscal measures that were also announced in the budget. What does the economic update tell us? To start with, the economic update tells us that the deficit for 2025‑26 in fact turned out to be about $66.9 billion rather than the $78.3 billion that had been forecast back in the November budget, so there was an improvement of about $11 billion in the public accounts of the government, of the country.
Why was the deficit less than expected? It has nothing to do with the high price of oil. Conservatives talk about the GST on oil and say that it causes oil prices to go up and that is where the government makes its money, etc. No, the deficit was $11 billion less than what had been anticipated earlier because the economy in 2025 was much stronger than what had been expected. Government revenues were higher, and government spending was lower. That is where that $11 billion comes from.
Not only is the economy of Canada a resilient economy that has been able to withstand severe shocks, but it grew at a reasonable pace when compared with our neighbours and peer countries. The economy of Canada is not broken. We are in fact leading the way among the G7 countries, which is recognized by our peers.
That brings me to the next point I want to make, which is that this proves that Canada really has considerable fiscal strength. Our fiscal house is in order. We have a deficit of 2.1% of GDP, which, when we compare it to peer countries, is perfectly manageable. That deficit is projected to go to 1.4% of GDP by 2030, so the deficit is on a downward track. The debt-to-GDP ratio is at about 41% and will remain around that level in the fiscal framework into 2030 as well, which gives Canada a AAA rating. How can a country with a AAA rating have a broken economy? It does not. It does not make sense. We have a AAA rating because our fiscal house is in order and because our economy is growing despite the severe headwinds and shocks.
By the way, I remind all members of the House and all those listening to us with great enthusiasm that this Friday, the GDP numbers are coming out for the first quarter. I do not know what those numbers will be, but I am pretty certain that Q1 GDP growth will be fairly strong.
We hear this business that Canada has the fastest-shrinking economy in the G7. No. In fact, we have one of the fastest-growing economies in the G7 despite the shocks and the very uncertain context in which we are operating. I would like to take some time to talk about that context. It is important to talk about the economic context because context is everything.
Our colleagues from the opposition keep on saying that “2014 was this, 2014 was that, and 10 years later, blah blah blah.” The context is very important. We could go all the way back to 2007-08 and the financial crisis. I will not go that far, but I think we could because the world economy did go through a severe shock in 2007-08. The adjustment that took place afterwards took some time and left some scars globally.
What has happened since 2020? We had the pandemic. The economy shut down. Governments in the OECD area shut down their economies because no one knew what was going to happen. Everything was stopped. To prevent a massive depression, because that was what was going to happen if nothing was done, governments in the OECD area spent massively to support their economies.
The Conservatives will say we wasted all that money. If governments had not done that, then the OECD economies and the global economy would have slipped into a major depression. That was a big shock in 2020. It was then followed by an economic rebound, a very sharp rebound, that took place in late 2021 into 2022, and it was a rebound in the context of broken supply chains. The result of that was massive upward pressure on prices.
Inflation took off in the OECD area. It was not a “Liberal deficit”. Were the Liberals also responsible for the U.S. deficit, the German deficit and the French deficit? Let us be serious. It was a result of the sharp rebound with broken supply chains, compounded by the war in Ukraine. The war in Ukraine led to, among other things, a very sharp increase in the prices of oil and other products, like grains.
The global economy was already unbalanced in 2022-23. It was a very different environment than what we had before. New solutions and new proposals had to be put in place because the times were very different. As if that was not sufficient, then what did we have in 2024-25? A new administration in the United States decided to trigger a trade war. The world as we knew it is no longer the same.
The United States, our trusted ally, no longer wants to buy things from Canada, because it claims it does not need anything from Canada. It does, but that is what it claims. Therefore, we have this weird world of 50% tariffs on aluminum from Canada in the name of the national security of the United States. The U.S. actually needs Canadian aluminum.
We have a very complex world. The tariff war is real. The tariff war is something we did not ask for. The tariff war is what is leading to profound adjustments in our manufacturing sector and in our economy as a whole. As our Prime Minister has repeated over and over again, this is not just a simple adjustment. This is a rupture in the world as we knew it, and the world now is different. The world has changed. That is something provincial premiers have fully realized. Whether it is Mr. Ford in Ontario, Ms. Smith in Alberta or Mr. Moe in Saskatchewan, all Conservative premiers, they have realized the world has changed and Canada has to adjust to this new world order.
Then, as if that was not enough, we have the war in the Middle East, which has led to a doubling of oil prices. That is a very different context that requires serious measures, which is what was done—
Mr. Chair, I have some questions for our excellent Minister of Finance.
I am sorry about where I am sitting because we will have to turn. I did not choose my seating arrangement strategically.
[Translation]
Perhaps the Minister of Finance could talk to us a little about what it really means to have a AAA credit rating.
When he travels and meets with colleagues from other G7 countries, what does it mean to him that Canada has a AAA credit rating? What is the benefit of that for all Canadians?
Mr. Chair, it is refreshing to hear a colleague who was once a minister of finance talk to us about issues and real things.
I think that the people of Laval must be very proud to hear my colleague share his experience. It is a great privilege to serve with a colleague who was once the finance minister of a great province like Quebec. I salute him and thank him for his economic statement.
He is right, and it is refreshing to hear comments and questions like these because, essentially, what is being said is that two G7 countries, Canada and Germany, have an AAA credit rating.
What does that give us? It gives us the fiscal capacity to make generational investments, similar to those that our colleagues in Germany made.
We are doing it in infrastructure, obviously in housing, productivity and innovation, as well as effort.
I will have a lot more to say in response to the next question.
Mr. Chair, the International Monetary Fund released its annual report a short time ago, which includes very encouraging remarks about Canada and the Canadian economy, despite the cloud of uncertainty hanging over the global economy. The IMF had some really positive things to say about us.
When the minister is abroad, speaking with his counterparts and with investors looking to invest here, what advantage does he get out of the fact that the IMF has such high praise for Canada?
Mr. Chair, it fills my heart with joy because, here in the House, we often hear the opposition criticizing the government, but when it comes to the International Monetary Fund, we know that it looks at global economies and offers an informed and impartial assessment.
In that regard, it can be said that the International Monetary Fund has held up Canada as an example of a country with the strongest public finances in the G7. We can imagine the growth of these countries.
I will simply provide a few figures. Canada has the second-fastest growth in the G7. Italy is at 0.5%, Japan is at 0.7%, Germany and the U.K. are at 0.8%, and France is at 0.9%. Meanwhile, Canada stands at 1.5%.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Hon. François-Philippe Champagne: Mr. Chair, even my Conservative colleagues should be applauding this evening. I know it is a bit late, but they still have enough energy to cheer on Canada and the resilience of our economy, our workers and our industries.
It is a pleasure to build Canada strong together and to build the strongest economy in the G7.
Mr. Chair, the economic update includes many measures, but I would like to focus on one in particular and ask the minister if he can comment on it. Unfortunately, we do not have much time.
I am thinking in particular of the investment fund, the Canada Strong fund, which I think is an excellent idea.
Could the minister comment on that?
Mr. Chair, 30 seconds is not very long, because building Canada strong obviously requires a strong team Canada, a strong team of workers who will build this country.
The sovereign wealth fund is a unique opportunity to build collective wealth, but in a very Canadian way, since it will enable ordinary people, that is, individual investors, to invest in and own part of this collective wealth that we are going to create together.
I think it is a great initiative. It is typical of Canada to want to build. That is why we want to build Canada strong for all.
[English]
Mr. Chair, on September 10, 2025, the minister wrote a letter to the Prime Minister, saying that if he were involved in any decisions, discussions or debates related to the Alto project, he would be in a conflict of interest. Is that correct?
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I am pleased to inform my colleague that I have complied with all legal requirements regarding this matter.
[English]
Mr. Chair, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna.
The question is about the letter the minister wrote in September 2025. Will the minister table that letter in the House, and at the ethics committee when he appears on June 11?
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, as I said, I have complied with all the rules under the law. I will have the opportunity to testify before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the coming weeks, and I will be happy to answer any questions my colleagues may have when I appear before the committee.
[English]
Mr. Chair, this evening the minister has the opportunity to inform Canadians and the House about the conflict of interest he said he would be in if he participated in votes, decisions, discussions or debates on Alto. This is why the minister put in place a conflict of interest screen. Is that not correct?
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I would like to quote an excerpt from the letter written by the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner on April 7, 2026: Alto is a Crown corporation accountable to Parliament through the Minister of Transport, and as Minister of Finance, you have no decision-making authority over matters of human resources at Alto; you do not have the opportunity to further the interest—
[English]
Mr. Chair, it was the minister who said there would be a conflict of interest. The letter the minister provided to the Prime Minister should be furnished. Because we know it was shared with media, it should certainly be shared with parliamentarians.
Why did the ethics screen the minister put in place not prevent him from participating in discussions, decisions, debates or votes related to Alto?
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, allow me to finish quoting the letter, which says that “there is no risk of conflict of interest and that a screen is not required.” Those are the words of the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. However, in the interest of integrity, I took it upon myself to proactively implement a screen. I will have the opportunity to explain myself before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the coming weeks.
[English]
Mr. Chair, It was the minister who said there would be a conflict of interest. Those were his words.
Did that screen prevent the minister from participating in discussions about Alto in cabinet?
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, as I said, I followed all the rules required by law, and of course I complied with the screen that was put in place.
[English]
Mr. Chair, did the screen apply to Bill C-15?
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, as I said, I followed all the rules under the law and I complied with the screen that was put in place.
[English]
Mr. Chair, it has been more than an hour that the minister has been here, and he has said an awful lot of things but has not answered our questions, and that trend continues.
Did the screen that the minister said was necessary to avoid a conflict of interest apply to clause 191 of Bill C-15?
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, allow me once again to quote from the letter for the benefit of my colleague. He is an experienced man. I think he is even a lawyer. It comes from the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and it is dated April 7̓. It says that “there is no risk of conflict of interest and that a screen is not required.” In addition, I proactively put a screen in place to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest.
[English]
Mr. Chair, we take all hon. members at their word in this place, and it was the hon. minister who said there would be a conflict of interest if he were involved in discussions, debates or decisions.
Clause 191 contained the High-Speed Rail Network Act. That was Alto-related legislation. Is that true?
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I would like to quote those words again because all manner of allegations can be made in this House, but what matters is the truth. The truth is in a message sent on April 7, 2026, by the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, which states, “Alto is a Crown corporation accountable to Parliament through the Minister of Transport, and as Minister of Finance, you have no decision-making authority”—
[English]
Mr. Chair, on February 25, 2026, the minister voted on Motion No. 44, which would have deleted clause 191 from Bill C-15. Is that correct?
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I will continue my quote: “...you have no decision-making authority over matters of human resources at Alto; you do not have the opportunity to further the interest of any specific Alto employee”. I was also told that there is no risk of conflict of interest and that a screen is not required.
That is what I was told by the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.
[English]
Mr. Chair, it is unbelievable that the minister will not even confirm how he voted on the bill. He will not provide the letter that he wrote in which he said there would be a conflict. We just want to provide transparency for Canadians. If he has nothing to hide, he certainly should be able to provide to members of the House of Commons the letter that he shared with Toronto Star. Why will he not share it?
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, the letter in question was forwarded to the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. As I said, I have complied with all the rules under the law. I will continue to do so, as I am required to do and as my colleagues in the House are required to do. We are all subject to the same rules here in the House.
[English]
Mr. Chair, the minister told Canadians that he had a conflict of interest screen because he believed there would be one if he participated in debates, discussions, decisions or votes related to Alto, but the minister's department then hired an outside contractor for the budget who appears to have been connected to Alto. Did a conflict of interest screen apply to that contractor?
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, my colleague is an experienced man. He is a very talented parliamentarian, but he is making a lot of allegations. I know that his legal training should lead him to be cautious in what he says and in the allegations he makes against his colleagues, who are all honourable members of the House, as well as their families.
[English]
Mr. Chair, I have made no allegation. I have only repeated what the minister has said. Regarding what we have asked, and indeed one of the minister's hon. colleagues asked me to repeat it outside the House, I am asking questions, and the questions are repeating exactly what the minister has said. Therefore, did Finance Canada hire an outside contractor to assist with the 2025 budget speech and presentation, yes or no?
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I want to get back to this point because I have been a member of the House for 12 years. I believe that my colleague has been a member for over 10 years as well. We all deserve respect. We all have the right to treat each other honourably. I have conducted myself in an honourable manner. I am answering his questions. I told him that I complied with all the rules under the law and that I would testify before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.
I think my colleague should be careful about the allegations he makes.
[English]
Mr. Chair, this is a different question. The question is about a contractor who worked on the budget speech.
My understanding is that this is separate from your letter in September. It was a contract worth $12,168. I would encourage you to use your officials who are here in the chamber with you. The contract identified a vendor. The vendor's last name is Émond, and I am wondering if the minister can confirm that this contract was awarded. It is open-source. It is published online: $12,168 to help with the budget presentation and speech. Can he confirm that?
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I do not understand the nature of the question. If my colleague already has the answer, I do not see the point of asking. As he says, if the information is in the public domain, he will have the opportunity to obtain all the information he needs. We are here to answer any questions, but when it comes to questions involving information that is in the public domain, I believe my colleague is capable of obtaining it.
[English]
Mr. Chair, the contractor worked for Alto and then worked on the budget presentation that included details about Alto, and money and implementation legislation for Alto. Does the minister recognize that this is a conflict of interest, and were measures taken to prevent that? Was the Ethics Commissioner informed that this contractor was also concurrently employed by Alto?
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, like all my colleagues here, in the years I have served in the House, I have always treated my colleagues with the utmost respect. I believe that all members of the House are entitled to the same respect.
I have already stated on several occasions that I have complied with all the rules required by law. I will continue to do so, as I am required to do, and as all my colleagues in the House are required to do.
[English]
Mr. Chair, the government is already spending money on land acquisition for the Alto project while public consultations are still active. Why are taxpayers paying for the real estate before consultations are even finished and before the final route is even locked in?
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, my colleagues will see that the Government of Canada is making generational investments in infrastructure. The country needs modern infrastructure. That is why, in budget 2025, I presented a major infrastructure plan.
[English]
Mr. Chair, I realize the minister has been here for a couple of hours, but he has not answered very many questions, if any. I am hopeful he will answer this one.
Internal documents outline a strategy for massive station area land assembly stretching up to two kilometres around a station, explicitly based on the Hong Kong “rail plus property” real estate model. Since his bill, Bill C-15, fails to include land abandonment or buyback provisions, if the route changes in an Ottawa neighbourhood like Eastway Gardens, who keeps the excess land and development profits? Is it the government, Alto or the private consortium?
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, based on the answers I gave earlier, my colleague will understand that these questions should be directed to the Minister of Transport, who is the minister responsible for this project.
[English]
Mr. Chair, can the minister provide a total land acquisition cost today or confirm that the Department of Finance does not really have a final number because it is busy appraising entire urban neighbourhoods for real estate portfolios?
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, my colleague understands that, in a large country like Canada, we need to make generational investments in infrastructure. That is exactly what we presented in budget 2025. I think Canadians understand that if we want to build a resilient country, if we want to export, we need to build infrastructure across the country.
[English]
Mr. Chair, I am not looking for a generational answer. I am just looking for an answer.
Under this public-private partnership, do taxpayers carry 100% of the expropriation and route change risk while the private consortium carries zero per cent of that risk? I would like just a simple yes or no.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, not only am I answering my colleague, but I am giving him a generational answer, as my colleague said. That is a good way to put it.
For consistency, with respect to the allegations made by my colleagues, he should direct that question to the minister responsible for the project. I am sure the minister responsible will be happy to answer his question.
Mr. Chair, I thought I asked the minister a good question.
[English]
I guess the minister has a different impression of what answers mean to someone else.
If the public takes all the financial gambles on surplus land assembly, and the private sector takes all the development guarantees, what risk is actually private in this partnership? Maybe the minister can answer that.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I am sure the member can appreciate that, if we are to be consistent with the questions and allegations raised by his colleague, this matter should be addressed to the minister responsible. I know that my colleague is honourable. He understands all the rules of the House. The minister responsible will be happy to provide all the answers my colleague is hoping to get. I will also be happy to pass the questions suggested by my colleague this evening on to the minister responsible.
[English]
Mr. Chair, maybe the minister is less touchy about this, so I will turn to airport policy.
The government is expanding its information-gathering powers under division 6 of Bill C-30 to include every single airport authority in Canada. What are our national airports worth today, and has a full valuation been provided to Parliament, yes or no?
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I think we need to modernize the way we are currently managing public assets in this country. I think it is important for the government to have all the facts and figures so that it can carry out a thorough analysis of these assets. I would say it is time to modernize the way we—
[English]
Mr. Chair, since the proceeds of these alternative ownership models are earmarked to be stripped away from local operators and siphoned to the Canada Strong fund, how will our airports maintain their infrastructure when they are being left unintentionally undercapitalized while travellers are hit with massive fee hikes just to satisfy a private investor's ROI?
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, as I said, it is important to get all the information necessary to do our due diligence. I think we are at a time when we need to modernize the way we manage public assets. This measure will allow us to get all the facts and provide a comprehensive analysis so we can make the best decisions in the interest of Canadians.
[English]
Mr. Chair, I rise this evening to highlight the contributions of the new government in Bill C-30 to the coastal communities of Prince Edward Island.
Small craft harbours are places of employment for more than 1,200 fishers. For many, it is a way of life passed from one generation to the next, from setting day when family and friends line the wharf to wish harvesters a safe and prosperous season to the last trap that comes ashore at the end of the season. It is the pride of families who have made their living from the sea for decades.
For Islanders, fishing is part of our identity. It is parents and the next generation hauling traps together, learning the ropes. It is gathering at the wharf after a long day on the water to talk about the daily fishing news. It is communities built around hard work, resilience and respect for the ocean. Across Atlantic Canada, this same story exists across coastal communities where the fishery sustains not only local economies but traditions, culture and livelihoods.
In Prince Edward Island alone, the total value of fish and aquaculture exceeded $454 million in 2024, with lobster landings accounting for more than $358 million of this. The overall contribution to P.E.I.'s economy exceeds almost $1 billion and supports as many as 8,000 jobs at peak production. Across Atlantic Canada, fisheries landings totalled more than $3.6 billion in 2024, with shellfish accounting for over $3.28 billion of that value. These are not just statistics. These are processing plants operating in rural communities. They are truck drivers, welders, suppliers, fuel operators, mechanics, buyers and plant workers, whose livelihoods depend on a strong and sustainable fishery.
Small craft harbours are the centre of all this activity. They are the economic engines of many rural communities in Atlantic Canada, yet for many years, too many of these harbours have faced underinvestment, aging infrastructure, storm damage and the growing impacts of climate change, as we have seen with the devastating impacts of hurricane Fiona. In many areas, fishers and harbour authorities are doing everything they can simply to keep facilities operational while waiting for major repairs and modernization work to proceed.
Here in Ottawa, we formed a small craft harbours committee to discuss these very issues as a collective. I want to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues for their unwavering persistence to work with me for funding for small craft harbours. I also want to personally thank the Prime Minister and the ministers of finance and fisheries for making sure our proposal for a significant investment in small craft harbours was included in the spring economic statement.
We are very pleased to see the beginning of the rollout of these announcements across Atlantic Canada, the Pacific coast and the north as part of the nearly $1-billion investment over five years through the small craft harbours program. This is the largest sustained investment in small craft harbours in decades.
However, maintaining safe and functional harbours is not only about wharfs and breakwaters. It also requires ongoing and responsive dredging investments to ensure channels remain navigable and safe for harvesters. In Prince Edward Island and across Atlantic Canada, weather events, storm surges and coastal erosion can quickly impact harbour entrances and navigation channels. When dredging delays occur, fish harvesters face serious operational and safety challenges, particularly during low tide. Responsive dredging capacity following major weather events must be viewed as essential maintenance for our harbours.
During her recent visit to Red Head Harbour, the Minister of Fisheries saw first-hand sections of the harbour that have been fenced off because of damage and safety concerns. That reality should be a concern to all of us. Harbours are workplaces. They should be safe for fish harvesters. They should be safe for buyers, plant workers, transport operators and the many families and tourists who visit throughout the season. Red Head is not alone. Harbours in the Cardigan riding, which I represent, like Mink River, Fortune and Georgetown, all continue to wait in the queue for repairs to ensure their harbour infrastructure can support their fisheries.
I also want to take an opportunity to commend the Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Association and associations across Atlantic Canada for the leadership they continue to show in advancing conservation measures while sustaining fisheries.
Harvesters understand the need to protect marine ecosystems because their livelihoods and their futures depend on them. When we invest in fisheries, we are investing in much more than infrastructure or economic output. We are investing in communities where families will continue to watch boats come home at sunset and where generations continue to see that there is a viable future on the water. That future matters deeply to Prince Edward Island and to Atlantic Canada. I believe there is much more to come as we continue building stronger coastal communities, modernizing harbours, supporting innovation in conservation and ensuring that the next generation can continue with a proud tradition of making a living from the sea.
I believe we also need to think bigger about the role of ports and harbour infrastructure in Atlantic Canada and throughout Canada. Our harbours are not only critical to the fishing industry. They also represent untapped economic potential tied to trade diversification, domestic supply chains, food security and transportation corridors.
In Prince Edward Island and across Atlantic Canada, strategic investments in harbour and port infrastructure could support seafood exports, agri-food storage and transportation, cold storage capacity and greater access to domestic and international markets. These investments can strengthen economic resilience while reducing pressure on larger transportation hubs. There is also growing potential for ports and marine infrastructure to support broader national objectives, including Arctic and defence supply chains, emergency response capacity and economic security.
Coastal communities have always played an essential role in building Canada's economy, and they will continue to play an even greater role as we strengthen domestic trade and transportation networks.
Can the minister speak to how the government views small craft harbours as strategic economic assets that strengthen trade diversification, food security and rural economic resilience across Atlantic Canada?
Mr. Chair, we can see in my colleague's heart and voice, the passion he has for fishers and for their communities. I want to applaud him. I am sure the people he represents are very proud tonight.
I want to thank all my colleagues who have shown up tonight to be here to do the important work of democracy, which is to be held to account. It is what I have been doing for hours, and I will continue to do it because it is what Canadians expect of us.
The member talked about small craft harbours. I want to say this in front of all Canadians, because I know this is televised and people are going to watch. He was one of the members who inspired us to do what is right for Canadians, for fishers and for their communities. We made a generational investment, $1 billion, which is twice as much as has ever been put into small craft harbours, and I want to thank the member. I want to say publicly that he has been one of the people who has talked to the Prime Minister and I to make it happen. I think that tonight, he should be very proud.
It shows the power of MPs. Members of Parliament are here to represent their communities. They are here to speak on behalf of their constituents and to raise issues that matter to the people they represent. I want to say that this member did that superbly. Time and time again, he reminded us of the importance of investing in small craft harbours. I would say that we have delivered.
I was pleased to be in New Brunswick just recently with a number of colleagues. I can see the difference it is going to make in the livelihoods of millions of Canadians. Fish harvesters depend on small craft harbours for their living. Their communities also depend on them.
I want to say it again. We focus a lot on the answers tonight, but members like him who stand up to represent their communities, who fight for them and get what they need, should be applauded and thanked this evening. I give my thanks to the member.
Mr. Chair, I guess I better thank the Minister of Finance for the kind words.
As Canada looks to strengthen domestic supply chains and transportation corridors, does the minister see untapped potential in Atlantic Canada's ports and harbours to support industries such as agri-food, storage and transportation, and even the broader national objectives of defence and economic resiliency?
Mr. Chair, this is a really good point. When I was in New Brunswick, I had the privilege of seeing the cold storage. I think it is at the Moncton airport that they have a very large facility. That is the kind of structural investment we need to make in this country. Yes, obviously we need to build infrastructure, but cold storage facilities, like the one I saw, are really making a difference. I was so impressed by the workers, the people there. Do members know that they load a 747 with lobster in about two hours? I was really impressed to see how these communities, because they have connectivity with the rest of the world and because of the investments that were made, are able to support families and communities across Canada.
Again, I want to thank all members tonight. I know it is getting late, but I know people are here and the work they are doing is very important. For me as minister, being held to account on behalf of the government is my job, and I am happy to answer as many questions as we can tonight. I want to thank the members for the outstanding work they are doing tonight.
I am going to split my time, Mr. Chair.
I thank the minister for being here tonight. Before he presents himself as Canada's economic rescuer, Canadians deserve an accounting. He sat at the cabinet table as industry minister while the investment climate deteriorated in this country. The policies that drove capital away were his policies, so I will ask him quite candidly if he did anything wrong.
Mr. Chair, first of all, I want to thank my colleague for her question. She is a very experienced member of the House.
I think what the numbers show is that the Canadian economy is far more resilient than people expected. Despite the nature of what we are seeing with respect to uncertainty in the world, Canadians are resilient. Canadian industries are resilient. Canadian workers are resilient. That is why we can show numbers that show the Canadian economy is very resilient.
Mr. Chair, that is all true, but it does not answer my question. RBC analyzed the full decade from 2015 to 2024, years during which the minister held senior cabinet responsibilities.
Can he tell the House the net investment figure in that period? How many net dollars left Canada under his leadership?
Mr. Chair, I have good news for my colleague. In fact, we have received a record level of investment. I think it is the highest number in the last 20 years. I can reassure her that wherever I go internationally, people value the stability, predictability and opportunities they see in Canada. At this time, the executive director of the International Energy Agency has said that energy architecture is being redesigned and Canada is going to play a major role.
Mr. Chair, that was not my question.
The answer for the minister is that one trillion dollars left Canada. According to RBC, that is the single largest sustained capital outflow in Canada's history. For a country of 40 million people, just to put it into context for those watching at home, that is $25,000 for every person. Does the minister find that acceptable?
Mr. Chair, my colleague would be happy to know that Canada is seen as an energy superpower. We are attracting a record level of foreign direct investment. Investors around the world are looking for places that offer stability, predictability and the rule of law. I would say Canada stands out in this context, and we will continue to build Canada strong together.
Mr. Chair, I will ask the minister the same question again because he did not answer my question. Under his leadership as the minister of industry, during the 10-year period that he was at the cabinet table, a trillion dollars of investment outflow left this country. Does he find that acceptable?
Mr. Chair, I would say that my colleague should be reassured by the generational investments we are making in infrastructure, housing, productivity and innovation, and the fact that we have the lowest marginal effective tax rate of all the G7 countries. New investments in Canada receive the lowest tax rate in the G7. We are building Canada strong.
Mr. Chair, I will put it into context. For every dollar of foreign investment that came into Canada during that decade, two dollars left this country. It is not because of global issues. It is not because of the tariffs. Tariffs were not an issue then. It is a domestic policy failure that the minister cannot admit he was a part of.
Does he accept responsibility, any responsibility, for his role in a trillion dollars leaving this country?
Mr. Chair, Canadians should take credit for being the country that has attracted the largest amount of foreign investment in the last 20 years. It is not about government. It is about workers. It is about industry. It is about this country. What we have been doing is building the conditions for Canada to stand out in the world. I would remind my colleague that if she looked at the uncertainty index of the International Monetary Fund, she would see we are at one of the highest levels since the Second World War.
Mr. Chair, does the finance minister know that the single biggest hurtle to investment decisions in this country right now is not tariffs? His own business council, the Business Council of Canada, says it is Canada's own domestic regulatory burden that is in the way. It is government that is in the way of those investment dollars.
Does he agree with any of that?
Mr. Chair, I would say global investors see Canada as the place to invest. I would remind my colleague of the International Energy Agency, which mentioned that Canada is playing a big role in the new energy architecture. It is a good thing that Canada is seen as an energy superpower in conventional, renewable and nuclear energy. We are going to build Canada strong together.
Mr. Chair, attracting private investment and advancing major projects is critical to economic growth and government revenues.
Will the minister agree with that?
Mr. Chair, I would agree that we have put the conditions in place to attract investment in this country, and the numbers speak for themselves.
Mr. Chair, can the minister tell us how long it took for the government to get the TMX pipeline built?
Mr. Chair, my colleague will be pleased to know that the International Energy Agency and international commentators see Canada playing a bigger role when it comes to energy security around the world and that we have taken a number of measures to support the energy industry in this country.
Mr. Chair, TMX took five years and went over budget five times, by $28 billion Canadian taxpayer dollars, to triple the size of a pipe on a pathway that already had a pipeline. That means no new pipe and no new land.
Where did the $28 billion go?
Mr. Chair, I am trying to understand my colleague's question. He is saying that Canada needs to build more. I agree with him. We need to build more to make sure we can bring our energy resources to market. I would say our Asian partners and European partners are counting on Canada to play a bigger role when it comes to energy.
Mr. Chair, it took five years for TMX to get built, and it was $28 billion over budget. The Liberals just announced a memorandum of understanding with the Government of Alberta to build a pipeline that is going to be a projected deliverable seven years from now.
Why is that going to take so long if there is an energy emergency around the world?
Mr. Chair, my colleague would know, because he is a very learned colleague, that the energy ecosystem is being redesigned in the world. Like I said, the crisis in the Middle East is calling for countries to redesign their energy ecosystems. That is what we have heard. In that context, Canada is being called on to play a bigger role in terms of energy security.
Mr. Chair, is it the minister's view that investment in Canada's resource sector has increased or decreased since 2015?
Mr. Chair, it is certainly my view that we will see more investment in the energy sector in Canada. We can just look at the recent investment of Shell, which made one of its largest investments in Canada. We have also seen LNG Canada, which is one of the largest of its kind. There are a number of LNG projects that we are seeing, and more will be coming because people—
Mr. Chair, Shell made an acquisition, not an investment. I will make the minister cite that difference.
How much private sector capital has left Canada for U.S. projects over the past five years?
Mr. Chair, I am happy to say that the foreign direct investment inflow in Canada in 2025 was $97 billion. Investors around the world see what Canada has to offer. We have one of the most educated workforces. We have very strong industry. We have critical minerals. We have energy, and we are the only country in the G7 with free trade with all other G7 nations. We have what we need to succeed.
Mr. Chair, does the minister know how long it actually takes, on average, to approve a major energy or infrastructure project in Canada?
Mr. Chair, my colleague will have the opportunity to vote on legislation that would certainly help to build more in this country, and I think that is what we want to see. We are united in wanting to see more infrastructure and more investment in this country, and it is a great thing for international investors. Like I said, in 2025, FDI inflow was $97 billion. That is a record.
Mr. Chair, it takes five, six or seven years. These tracks keep getting longer, and the minister does not seem to recognize that this is the problem.
Is that timeline shorter than it is in the United States?
Mr. Chair, I would invite my colleague to speak to global CEOs. He would be pleased to hear that they very much value investments in Canada. When I travel and speak to global CEOs, they see why Canada is the place to invest in. We just have to follow the dollars, and we are seeing large investments, like the one Shell made recently. They speak with their dollars.
Mr. Chair, that is interesting, because most global CEOs are investing in the U.S. and Mexico, including in infrastructure, where it takes about one-third of the time to get a project built than it does here in Canada.
Does the minister believe legislation like the Impact Assessment Act has made it easier or harder to build major projects in Canada?
Mr. Chair, the global CEOs I talk to around the world, and there are many, value investments in Canada. They value predictability, stability and the rule of law. I just have to look at the recent investment of Shell as an example. It sees Canada as playing a big role as an energy superpower.
Mr. Chair, I am going to start off where I left off. The Prime Minister announced a plan to attract $1 trillion of new investment after that former industry minister watched $1 trillion leave this country on his watch.
Can the minister admit to Canadians that this is not ambition, but damage control? He is trying to replace what his last government lost. Is that true?
Mr. Chair, I would be pleased to quote something that I know my colleague would like: “Canada Leads the G7 in Direct Investment Inflows Per Capita”. We are way ahead of the United States, and the investments we are making are going to attract even more investment.
Mr. Chair, I can see that the minister does not want to admit it or answer my question, so I will talk about foreign direct investment. The minister frequently celebrates Canada's foreign direct investment numbers, but he knows, as finance minister, that all of those numbers are not created equal.
Can he tell the House what share of Canada's inbound foreign direct investment over the last decade came from mergers and acquisitions, from foreign firms buying Canadian firms?
Mr. Chair, I would be happy to quote this again: “Canada Leads the G7 in Direct Investment Inflows Per Capita”. In fact, it is nearly double that of the United States on a per capita basis. Investors, like my colleague, understand that Canada is the place to invest. That is why we have seen record investment in 2025, and that is why we are seeing more and more firms looking to invest in Canada. That is why we are going to have an investment summit in September, to attract capital to our country.
Mr. Chair, I will answer the question for the minister, since he does not want to. The answer is 45%, nearly half. Can the minister explain to Canadians, as the finance minister, what a merger and acquisition actually means in that context? It does not mean a new factory. People at home will know that. It does not mean a new research centre, and it does not mean a new job. What does it mean?
Mr. Chair, I am trying to understand the line of questioning of my colleague. I think she should be celebrating the fact that Canada received record levels of foreign direct investment in 2025 and that we are leading the G7 on per capita FDI. It is good news, and we are going to continue to work with colleagues to attract investment in this country.
Mr. Chair, that answer is condescending and it does not show that he, as finance minister, understands what foreign direct investment is. It means a foreign company buying a Canadian one. Strategic decisions are moved abroad. The intellectual property moves abroad. The profits move abroad. He knows that as the finance minister. Again, he is treating those in the House like we are stupid.
C.D. Howe finds mergers and acquisitions generally do not create new jobs or investments, so why is the minister celebrating in the House the hollowing out of the Canadian economy?
Mr. Chair, a good Conservative, which I know my colleague is, would celebrate an open economy. Canada has an open economy where we welcome investment in our country. We have seen these investments that have grown the GDP in this country. They have created jobs.
Let us think about Volkswagen if they want to talk about the auto sector. It is the largest gigafactory outside of Europe. European manufacturers are choosing to come to Canada, just like a number of investors, such as Shell and LNG Canada, and they are creating opportunities, jobs, growth and wealth in this country.
Mr. Chair, the Minister of Finance knows, and if he does not know, he can ask the officials sitting right in front of him, that the true measure of Canada's health is the domestic investment. Canadians investing in Canada, businesses investing per worker, is the single best indicator of whether Canadian firms are growing and becoming more productive. He knows this. He is not telling the House this, but he knows it.
Can the minister tell us if domestic investment per worker is up or down in the last decade?
Mr. Chair, I know that my colleague will be happy to learn that Canada has the second-fastest growth in the G7. We are growing twice as fast as countries such as Germany and the United Kingdom, and even three times faster than Italy. We are growing twice as fast as Japan.
Tonight, we should celebrate the workers, the industry and the small and medium-sized businesses. These numbers speak for themselves.
Mr. Chair, what is true is that we have the only shrinking economy in the G7, and the answer is that it is 30% down. If he were truly interested in investing per worker, he would do so, and it has fallen by nearly a third.
Stats Canada projects that non-residential capital spending across all industries will grow by less than 2% going forward. Does this sound to the minister like an economy that has turned around or is turning around? It certainly does not sound like that to anyone on this side of the House or anybody watching at home.
Mr. Chair, Canadians have a choice to listen to the opposition or to the International Monetary Fund, which does not need a clip or to grandstand. The IMF forecast for 2026 real GDP growth in the G7 is as follows: Italy, 0.5%; Japan, 0.7%; Germany, 0.8%; United Kingdom, 0.8%; France, 0.9%; and Canada, 1.5%. These numbers speak for themselves.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I want to thank my colleague, the Minister of Finance, for his hard work and for the economic update he provided in the spring.
I also want to thank him for his recent visit to Moncton. I was very pleased to be able to welcome him. He gave my community a very good briefing with some highlights from the spring economic update. I thank him.
[English]
We all know that the world is changing. With the new geopolitical dynamics, the supply chain disruptions and the rapid technological breakthroughs, including in artificial intelligence, the world is changing quickly, and Canada must adapt to thrive.
In budget 2025, our government seized this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, making generational investments to foster vibrant communities, empower Canadians, protect our country and build the strongest economy within the G7. Many of these initiatives were reflected in the main estimates tabled earlier this year, one of the reasons we switched to the fall budget cycle.
Now, though, with the spring economic update 2026, we are staying the course with further measures to build a stronger, more independent and more resilient Canada, to advance our progress of building more affordable homes and major infrastructure, and to bring down the costs to help all Canadians get ahead. I look forward to speaking today to some of these key investments with both publications that we have made.
[Translation]
When the Minister of Finance tabled the budget in 2025, he presented Canadians with a plan to build a single Canadian economy powered by major projects of national interest that will connect our regions, diversify our markets and create hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs. This plan includes a $115‑billion investment in infrastructure to strengthen public services, such as public transit and water systems, to build hospitals, to support indigenous communities, and to build trade and transportation infrastructure that will ensure that our goods and services move efficiently across the country and around the world.
At the same time, we have invested $25 billion to build affordable housing at scale. Through initiatives such as Build Canada Homes, targeted tax measures and strategic incentives, these investments form the cornerstone of the most ambitious housing supply plan that Canada has seen in a generation.
Budget 2025 also introduced a five-year, $110-billion framework to strengthen Canada's productivity and global competitiveness. The productivity superdeduction is a central part of this framework. It is a set of accelerated tax deductions that allow businesses to immediately write off a larger share of the cost of any capital asset, including an immediate deduction of 100% for investments in manufacturing or processing machinery and equipment, digital infrastructure, scientific research equipment, and clean energy technologies.
This is complemented by the enhancements to the scientific research and experimental development tax incentives, increasing the maximum amount of expenses eligible for the refundable tax credit to $6 million, simplifying eligibility criteria and reintroducing capital expenditures as eligible costs. Taken together, these measures support both innovation and capital investment and are a coordinated strategy to drive long-term economic growth and competitiveness.
[English]
We know we cannot build Canada strong without protecting our people and also protecting our values. This is why budget 2025 also included generational investments to secure our sovereignty, including meeting NATO's 2% of GDP core defence spending target this year, five years ahead of schedule, and putting Canada on a path to meeting NATO's 5% defence investment pledge by 2035.
To keep Canadians safe at home, we are strengthening border security, taking action against organized crime and illegal trafficking, and upholding the rule of law in every region. We are doing so by implementing Canada's border plan and delivering key investments in budget 2025, such as hiring 1,000 additional Canada Border Services Agency officers, upgrading border technology and enhancing intelligence sharing to combat the smuggling of illegal firearms, drugs and people.
Canada's government is making all of these investments possible by changing how government works. We have cut back on operational expenses, including by rightsizing the public service, cutting red tape and eliminating wasteful spending to prioritize long-term investments and to deliver better services to all Canadians. In fact, we are slowing the average growth in direct program expenses from 8% over the last decade to 2.2% from 2025-26 to 2030-31. These efforts are reinforced by the government's comprehensive expenditure review, which is systematically reducing inefficiencies and refocusing spending on core priorities, contributing, along with other measures, to a total of $60 billion in savings and revenues over the next five years.
At the same time, we introduced a new capital budgeting framework, detailed in budget 2025, that distinguishes day-to-day operational spending from capital investment, helping guide decisions and investments that generate long-term benefits for Canadians. This new approach will enhance, not replace, existing financial reporting while providing a clearer picture of the investments that will strengthen Canada's economy in the years ahead.
Rightsizing government through the discipline brought by the comprehensive expenditure review is critical in realigning resources for generational investments that build more and deliver results, because that is how we invest in Canada's future.
[Translation]
This brings me to the spring economic update, which maintains this fiscal discipline while investing in Canadians. I want to highlight one of the main measures, namely the Canada Strong fund, a sovereign wealth fund designed to deliver infrastructure projects and historic projects of national interest and to grow wealth for future generations. This new fund will invest in key strategic Canadian projects and companies alongside the private sector, creating jobs, supporting innovation and making Canada more competitive. What is more, Canadians themselves will have the opportunity to invest in the fund, sharing in its success.
We are also launching team Canada strong, a nationwide effort to recruit, train and hire 80,000 to 100,000 new Red Seal skilled trade workers. This innovative program will be especially useful for Canadians pursuing apprenticeships, because it offers up to $16,000 in weekly income top-ups during their training and a $5,000 completion bonus. It should also interest employers, because they are eligible for direct incentives of up to $10,000 in wage subsidies per apprentice.
To provide greater support for young people, our government is making education more affordable by extending the increases to Canada student grants and interest-free Canada student loans for another year, which will benefit thousands of students across the country.
The economic update also continues the work of Build Canada Homes with a plan to increase supply, lower costs and help more Canadians find a safe, affordable home. The plan also involves cutting red tape to build homes faster, supporting innovation in construction, quickly unlocking over $7 billion in low-cost financing, boosting the housing supply and protecting construction jobs across Canada. It will help those most in need by extending support for people experiencing homelessness and ensuring that survivors of gender-based violence have access to safe housing.
That is not all, but since my time is almost up, I want to take a few minutes to ask some questions to my dear friend and colleague, the minister.
Can the finance minister tell us more about the sovereign wealth fund? More specifically, can he explain how it will support government investments and help Canadians?
Mr. Chair, I would like to take a moment to thank my colleague because I know how proud the young people of Moncton—Dieppe are tonight to have a strong voice in Ottawa. She is a colleague I can applaud. She is a strong voice for the region and for New Brunswick. When my colleague speaks, Ottawa listens. The proof is that my colleague was one of the architects of many of the measures found in the budget and the economic statement. I really want to tell the people of Moncton—Dieppe that they made an excellent choice, because my colleague has been doing an extraordinary job for many years. It has been a privilege to serve alongside her.
She is right. In our economic statement, we said we need to build Canada strong for all, by putting structural measures in place. One of the key measures is the Canada Strong fund, our first national sovereign wealth fund. Together with the Prime Minister, we decided that we wanted to create a vehicle for collective wealth. We have seen how the sovereign wealth funds set up in Nordic countries, for example, have benefited communities, workers and families. In a very Canadian way, we are allowing individuals to invest. Ordinary folks will also be able to invest in this major fund, if they are interested and have a bit of savings. They will see their investment grow over the years, and they will be able to say that they helped build this great country. We talk about a strong Canada for all, and there is something very Canadian about telling people that they can contribute if they want to.
I want to once again thank my colleague for her outstanding leadership, because she has always been there to remind us of how we can build communities. I know that she comes from a part of the country that is a lot like mine. We often talk about rural areas and the regions. My colleagues also understand the importance of the regions. I have to say that she is an outstanding colleague who has done important work, and many of her ideas found their way into the 2025 budget and the economic statement.
This evening, I would like to thank her for her work on behalf of the people of Moncton—Dieppe.
[English]
Mr. Chair, we heard a bit earlier about the issue of direct foreign investments and how Canada is at a record high at this point in time. I am wondering if my hon. colleague could elaborate on what the conditions were that really created this environment and perhaps elaborate on the benefits to Canada.
Mr. Chair, it is good to have amazing colleagues like the minister who come and have very pointed questions.
In fact, I know my Conservative colleagues understand as well that Canada offers unparalleled stability, predictability and the rule of law. Like many of my colleagues, I studied law. I remember that I had this professor who said, “Find me a place in the world that does not have the pillar of investment. We saw that when we do not have that, we do not get investment.” The pillar of investment is stability, predictability and the rule of law. In a very divided world, in a world where we see the uncertainty index at its peak, almost since 1945, we can see why Canada stands out in the world. In the fog of uncertainty, we are the lighthouse. That is what I said at the IMF meeting at the G7. Canada is a lighthouse in the fog of uncertainty. Those were the words of the executive director of the International Monetary Fund. She said the world is wrapped in this fog of uncertainty, and our mission in a world that is more complex and volatile is to provide that kind of certainty.
What is certainty today? Certainty today has to do with what we can control. As our Prime Minister has said, we will focus on what we can control: remove interprovincial trade barriers, open our markets abroad, export to new markets, build the infrastructure, build the housing, be more competitive, invest in innovation and build a country strong. That is exactly what we are doing. We are building Canada strong with investment. I would say confident countries invest in themselves.
Canada has been singled out again. My colleagues in this House will understand that. There are only two countries that the IMF said are standing out, Germany and Canada, two countries with AAA credit rating that have the fiscal capacity to invest. It said that if those countries invest in housing, infrastructure, competitiveness and innovation, they will succeed.
That is why we see that Canada has the second-fastest growth in the G7, growing twice as much as our colleagues in Europe, twice as much as Germany, twice as much as Japan and three times more than Italy. Growth happens because of our policies. Growth happens because we have the best workers. Growth happens because we have strong industry. Growth happens—
Mr. Chair, I will be splitting my time with the member for Calgary East.
Norway's sovereign wealth fund is considered the gold standard, and its success is driven by reinvested budget surpluses and oil and gas revenue. Where is the $25-billion seed money coming from for Canada's fund?
Mr. Chair, I am happy to see that my colleague is talking about the Canada Strong fund. As she mentioned, Nordic countries have already created, in their way, something quite similar. I think it was about time that Canada created one of these pillars of investments to be able to create—
Mr. Chair, the minister did not answer the question. They will be borrowed funds, $25 billion in borrowed funds, whereas Norway funds it by surpluses.
My next question is this: Norway also ensures diversified global investments, so how is this fund expecting the best-in-class returns without global diversification?
Mr. Chair, my colleague was asking where she can find the details of where the funds are coming from. She will find that on page 129 in the English version of the budgetary balances. She will be able to find out exactly where the money is booked in the fiscal accounts of Canada.
Mr. Chair, my question was about diversifying investments. I did not receive an answer. Norway does not, in fact, invest the funds domestically. The minister is proposing exactly the opposite, to invest only in Canada.
My next question is this: Norway, which is the best-in-class example, ensures that the fund is free from political interference, so how can the fund be independent if it is prioritizing public interests selected by politicians like himself?
Mr. Chair, my colleague is very knowledgeable, as she was in finance for most of her career before being in politics.
We have been extremely clear about its governance, that it is going to be at arm's length from the government and it will make its own independent decisions. What we have said is that the fund will invest in projects of national interest and also invest in Canadian companies. A mandate like that is very consistent with other funds around the world. I think she should see the benefit of creating collective wealth for Canadians.
Mr. Chair, on the one hand, the minister is saying it will not have political influence, but then, in the same sentence, he says “we” will ensure that it will be in the national interest, and “we” will decide which projects those will be. The reality is that Norway has zero political influence, and here the fund will have tons.
My question to the minister is this. If the fund does not follow any of the traditional pillars of a traditional sovereign wealth fund, why did the minister tell Canadians that in fact it is one?
Mr. Chair, my colleague is very learned in finance. There is a difference between the mandate, which we have said is very clear, and the governance, which we say is going to be independent. It will have its own separate board and will be independent from government. We know this is very important. When creating a sovereign wealth fund, governance is very important.
The hon. member can be assured that we have consulted widely with funds around the world and we are integrating best practices because, again, we want to have a best-in-class fund that will serve the—
Mr. Chair, the minister assures Canadians that it will be independent. Who will appoint these independent board members?
Mr. Chair, as I have said time and time again, and we have been very clear, the fund will be independent from the government. We know this is a very important feature of this fund. It is going to be at arm's length from the government. It will make its investment decisions in accordance with the—
Mr. Chair, the reality is that the Liberal government will appoint a Liberal board. This fund will have borrowed money, no diversification and full political interference. Those are the characteristics of a political slush fund, so how can the minister call this a sovereign wealth fund?
Mr. Chair, I have enormous respect for my colleague, but I think it is irresponsible of her to speak in these terms about something that will create wealth for Canadians. We have consulted widely with funds around the world about best practices, and her view is very much outside of what we have heard from all commentators internationally who speak about Canada creating its fund. They know this is something that is going to serve Canadians well.
Mr. Chair, there are incredibly successful sovereign wealth funds around the world. The minister is choosing not to follow the example and is, in fact, doing the opposite. That is basic research. Why is the minister choosing to do that?
Mr. Chair, the voice of my colleague is very different from the voices we hear from international investors. If she reads the international press, she will see that Canada has been heralded as creating its own national sovereign wealth fund in a very Canadian way, allowing individual investors to be able to share—
Mr. Chair, we actually have an example. The Liberals established the Canada Infrastructure Bank. It was supposed to support infrastructure projects that are in the public interest, and it cannot even deploy the $35 billion it was given because of regulatory roadblocks that the government creates.
How can the minister pretend that this fund will be able to deploy the funds it will be given?
Mr. Chair, there is something to question. Everyone in the House has a role. I understand the role of the opposition is to ask questions, but I do not understand why talking down an instrument that is going to create collective wealth for Canadians is the right thing to do. In this House, we should all work together to create structure, to create more wealth for Canadians and—
Mr. Chair, I am not talking down anything. I am actually asking very simple questions, and I am getting zero answers.
The transport committee has recommended that the Canada Infrastructure Bank be abolished because it benefited Liberal-appointed insiders and, in fact, failed to fill infrastructure gaps. Why are the Liberals doubling down on a failed policy and refusing to follow the gold standard practices of other sovereign wealth funds?
Mr. Chair, in fact, we have consulted with sovereign wealth funds around the world. We even said we would be consulting. We have already established the parameters of the fund. We are going to make sure that we have best practices, but at the same time, we in this House should be happy to see that individual investors will be able to share the growth that we are going to be creating in this country.
Mr. Chair, Canadians are struggling to buy groceries, and the CEO of the Canada Infrastructure Bank is getting paid close to $1 million. It is not delivering. Now the Prime Minister and the minister want to recreate this whole scenario with yet another bureaucracy and another set of executives who will get paid millions of dollars as well.
Let us be transparent. How much will the minister pay the new CEO and board of this sovereign wealth fund?
Mr. Chair, it is difficult to follow the member tonight in her line of questioning. On the one hand, she said sovereign wealth funds are a good thing, and now she wants to criticize us for creating one. It is very difficult to follow. I would ask her, is it a good thing or a bad thing?
We have seen examples in Nordic countries and abroad that show creating a sovereign wealth fund is a good thing for people. That is why we are going to do our own sovereign wealth fund here in Canada using best practices.
Mr. Chair, if the member was following the golden class example of Norway, with budget surpluses, diversification and no political interference, then yes, it would be a good thing, but here, in fact, it is the opposite, which is why I am asking the questions. He is failing to answer them.
Here is another question. We have received zero information in terms of the cost of the fund. I asked the PBO. She did not have it. The Bank of Canada governor referred me to the finance minister's officials. Neither of them had it.
I will ask the minister again. How much will the sovereign wealth fund cost Canadians over the next five years?
Mr. Chair, I refer the member to table A1.9 on page 125 of the spring economic statement in English. She will find the information. It is all there.
Mr. Chair, how much will Canadians pay in interest on the $25 billion of debt that this fund will use? I want just the number.
Again, Mr. Chair, I know the member would want to refer to the document. It is all there on page 125. It is in table A1.9. She will see the numbers.
Mr. Chair, how much will the bureaucracy cost? I want just the number.
The minister must know the numbers. I would like just the number for how much it will cost in terms of the bureaucracy.
Mr. Chair, like I said, this is an important structure we are going to be creating to create collective wealth in the country. With respect to the numbers that my colleague has been asking for, she will find them in the spring economic update. She will be able to find the numbers for herself.
As she said, and as I think we should all celebrate, it is a good thing for Canada to have its own sovereign wealth fund.
Mr. Chair, as I said, we would have seed investments coming from the consolidated fund of Canada. Then, obviously, there will be other assets contributed and other investments made in the fund.
Mr. Chair, it is pretty obvious when we say that it is going to come from the consolidated fund of Canada as seed money, but after that, obviously, the fund will have its own investment and will generate revenues that can be reinvested and create wealth for Canadians.
Mr. Chair, over the last 10 years, we have seen the Liberal government create many other bureaucracies that have not met any targets and have run large deficits. Why would the minister create another debt fund that is filled with taxpayer money?
Mr. Chair, I would like to see my colleague have a bit more ambition for this country. This is about creating an instrument to provide collective wealth for Canadians. If it is good for the Nordic countries, as my colleague said, why would it not be good for Canada?
I am asking the question to my colleague. Why would it not be good for Canada to have its own sovereign wealth fund? I think it is a good thing, and it has been—
Mr. Chair, Nordic wealth funds are run with surpluses or royalties from resource revenues. This fund that the minister is creating is going to be funded by debt. Why?
Mr. Chair, I would invite my colleague to look at a number of sovereign funds. There are different models around the world. Like I said, this is going to be an instrument that is going to create wealth for Canadians.
I do not understand why the member would talk down the fact that we are creating collective wealth for Canadians. I hope that my colleague—
Mr. Chair, in Norway, the wealth fund, through its own legislation, does not invest in projects inside of Norway, because it could be inflationary. Why is the minister doing the opposite with this debt fund?
Mr. Chair, it is a great thing that the fund would be investing in Canadian projects of national interest. We want to build this country. We want to build at a speed and scale that we have not seen in generations. This is our own Canadian model, and I would say it is very consistent with what we see in other sovereign wealth funds around the world.
Mr. Chair, the minister, under his government, created a green slush fund at one point where appointed board members gave around $59 million to their Liberal insider friends. This was a huge Liberal scandal that took place during their tenure.
Is this another green slush fund?
Mr. Chair, I reject the premise of the question.
I would say to Canadians who are watching at home that I hope they see what is being talked about here. Canada is creating an instrument to create collective wealth and for Canadians to be able to invest and be part of that creation. I just hope that our Conservative colleagues would show more—
Mr. Chair, can the finance minister confirm that he will not be involved in the process of appointing board members for this new debt fund?
Mr. Chair, we understand very well that governance is essential when it comes to the sovereign wealth fund. We have been saying very clearly, very specifically, that it is going to be at arm's length from the Government of Canada.
Mr. Chair, a board is to be appointed to the new debt fund that the finance minister has created. Who will appoint those board members, and will the finance minister be involved in that process?
Mr. Chair, as I said, they will be very experienced people in governance. We know that governance is a key element when it comes to sovereign wealth funds.
I would say the maple leaf is seen around the world as best in class. We know what matters. What matters is that the fund would—
Mr. Chair, the minister can just clearly say that, no, he will not be involved. Obviously, it is very concerning that he cannot clearly tell Canadians that he will not be involved in the appointment of these board members.
Can he stand on his feet and clearly tell Canadians that he will not be involved in appointing board members to this new debt fund?
Mr. Chair, I have been doing this for hours tonight. I will repeat what I have said.
We understand very clearly that governance is key when setting up a sovereign wealth fund, and it is going to be at arm's length from the Government of Canada. We said that very clearly from the get-go. We are going to be consulting to incorporate best practices that we see around the world.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I am speaking today on the subject of the spring economic update.
We are living through a period of major economic and geopolitical upheaval. The global context is becoming more challenging, supply chains are fragile, protectionism is on the rise and trade tensions are having a direct impact on our workers, our businesses and our regions.
In this context, there are two ways to respond. There are those who downplay the transformation that is taking place, and there are those who choose to take action. Our government is choosing to take action.
We have a clear responsibility to build a stronger, more self-reliant and more resilient economy while also protecting Canadians with concrete, immediate measures to help them cope with the rising cost of living today. This is exactly what is in the spring economic update.
It is an update that helps families cope with the cost of living. It invests in workers, in the regions and in infrastructure. It does so without compromising responsible management of public finances.
We just spent two weeks in our ridings. People there spoke to us about their reality and the problems they face in terms of the cost of housing, the price of groceries and the price of gas.
We also heard a lot of talk in our regions about the labour shortage affecting businesses and slowing growth. This tells us we have political choices to make.
Some people suggest reducing the role of the government at the very time that families are asking for help and need support. We are doing the opposite. We are listening to families and offering them tangible measures.
We are going to help 22 million Canadians with a tax cut that will reach the entire middle class. We are also introducing a new Canada groceries and essentials benefit. This direct support to families will be sent out four times a year starting in early June.
We are eliminating the GST on certain eligible new homes, which will save first-time homebuyers up to $50,000. We are also extending the grace period for paying back the home buyers' plan, or HBP, from two years to five years to support homebuyers.
Another step that we are taking to support families is to temporarily suspend the federal excise tax on gasoline and diesel in order to provide immediate relief during a time of soaring gas prices.
The choice is clear: Either we support people, or we let them deal with the cost of living on their own. On this side of the House, we support our constituents.
The spring economic update also invests in training the next generation of workers. Through a program known as team Canada strong, we will train 80,000 to 100,000 workers in skilled trades that are in real demand, and we will provide increased support for apprentices. This also includes the cadet program.
Today, I am thinking of the young people in my region who are part of certain cadet corps, such as the 670 Haut-St-François cadet squadron, the 2449 Rock Forest-St-Élie-Deauville cadet corps, the 2852 Coaticook cadet corps and the Bishop's College School No. 2 Cadet Corps, which is the oldest continually active cadet corps in Canada.
These young people are the leaders of tomorrow. They are learning skills that will stand them in good stead all their lives, such as discipline, responsibility and teamwork.
I should mention that I myself was a naval cadet in my teens, as a member of the 247 Les Timoniers De Valcourt and the 257 Le Montagnais de Chicoutimi. I know what a difference being part of this movement can make in a young person's life.
This is annual review season, so I want to highlight the accomplishments of these young cadets and thank all of their leaders. I hope those participating in the summer camps will have a memorable experience.
These young people are our future workforce, and to be frank, if they do not get support, we cannot build a solid economic future. That is why we are also supporting young entrepreneurs and business succession, particularly the employee ownership trust model.
If a group of employees wants to take over a business, we will offer capital gains exemptions to the sellers to incentivize a sale. We will also support worker co-ops.
My region is teeming with aspiring young entrepreneurs. I want to highlight some of the local businesses that distinguished themselves this year at the OSEntreprendre Estrie challenge: O'Bois Équipement Inc., Éloi Saint-Arnaud Paysagiste and Solutions Nexolink, which are from the Coaticook RCM, and Cidrerie Pomme Sauvage, from the Haut-Saint-François RCM. I also want to mention the Bec-O Lanctôt farm in Compton, which also won an achievement award. This proves that it is possible to build, to evolve and, most importantly, to stand the test of time in our region.
I want to salute the young people behind some outstanding school projects: “Recipes from our home to yours!” from Notre-Dame-du-Sacré-Cœur school in Weedon; “Little THANK YOUs” from Saint-Paul school in East Angus; and “Burn Bright!” from Louis-Saint-Laurent high school in East Angus, which won the regional co-op award. These young people are brimming with great ideas, and I wish them all the best should they decide to become entrepreneurs.
The question is simple. Do we support this energy or do we hold them back?
Our government's choice is clear. We will support young people because they are at the heart of our communities.
The strength of our economy is also being built in our downtown cores and on our main streets, with our local businesses. It is built with people who are risk-takers and who are creative.
I want to highlight the work of Julie Favreau, the executive director of Rues principales Coaticook, who won the personality of the year award from the Rues principales network for her meaningful commitment to local economic vitality. At the same event, a team made up of Éric Gauthier, from Sherbrooke Innovante, and Sébastien Croteau, known by the stage name “L'Inconnu dans le noir”, from Cookshire-Eaton, won the people's choice award for their project to illuminate the water reservoirs at Rock Forest, which makes Halloween and Christmas a bright time in my region.
These are people walking the talk and bringing life to our communities.
The economic update also highlights agricultural and agri-food processing, sectors that are particularly close to my heart. Our government also considers it very important to invest in agri-food processing.
Recently, the restaurant Les Mal-Aimés in Cookshire-Eaton, run by Yannick Côté and Daniel Charbonneau, got a green star in the 2026 Quebec Michelin Guide for its commitment to sustainability and buying local. Indeed, 60% of the products served at this restaurant come from their own farm, and the rest come directly from Quebec. This is a concrete business model that supports local businesses. It is not the only local restaurant to have earned a spot in the Quebec Michelin Guide. I also want to highlight the achievements of Le Hatley restaurant at Manoir Hovey and the Tap Room, both of which have been recognized in the Michelin Guide. It is a source of pride to see local businesses making their mark in a publication that is distributed worldwide.
The economic update acknowledges the realities of Quebec and its regions. It extends employment insurance measures for seasonal workers, facilitates labour mobility, accelerates housing construction and supports port infrastructure, at the request of my colleagues from Nova Scotia, who have been very vocal on this issue. I mention Nova Scotia, but I would say this applies to the entire Atlantic region and will also have an impact on ports in the Gaspé Peninsula.
In all of this, there are two opposing views. One view treats the economy as a mere accounting exercise, while the other recognizes that the economy is made up of people, families and communities. Our government has chosen the latter. We are cutting red tape, modernizing the government and investing where it really makes a difference in the lives of Canadians.
I think it is time to move on to questions and answers. I have a few questions for my colleague, the Minister of Finance and National Revenue.
First and foremost, I would like to highlight how involved Alain Ouzilleau, the CEO of Cabico, has been in my region when it comes to the challenges facing the kitchen cabinet sector. This is a sector that is currently under pressure due to international problems. Mr. Ouzilleau has been a leader, as have the people at North American Cabinets in Cookshire-Eaton and at Cuisine Idéale.
Can the Minister of Finance tell us how we will support these businesses so that they can get through the difficult situation they are currently facing?
Mr. Chair, before I answer, I want to commend my colleague from Compton—Stanstead for her extraordinary work. The people of Compton—Stanstead are watching us tonight on television. The Habs are not playing this evening, so I am sure they are all watching what is happening in the House.
I want to tell everyone in the region how my colleague has been a strong voice, not only as an MP but also as the chair of the rural caucus. She told me what SMEs in her part of the country are going through. They include SMEs in the furniture industry, and I had a chance to meet with them. I want to thank her because she played a key role in the measures that we are taking as a government.
Following my meeting with manufacturers in the furniture and cabinetry sector, we referred their request to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal. We also considered safeguards. We know that this is an important industry in Quebec. I have to say that my colleague has done a great job in this area. This shows that an MP can make a difference. I want to thank her for that.
I admire my colleague, who has done a tremendous job defending the interests of furniture and cabinet manufacturers. I listened to them and I heard them. My colleagues will be pleased to hear that we have taken action, because we know they need a helping hand. We have put in place support measures for workers in the industry. We have also taken steps to ensure that the Canadian International Trade Tribunal gives this issue all the attention it deserves. Once again, I want to thank my colleague for her exemplary work on this issue.
Mr. Chair, I want to thank the minister for his answer and for his support on this matter.
The base cabinets and kitchen cabinets issue is important to the Eastern Townships. I worked on that with my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi, who has also done outstanding work. His support was exceptional.
I would like to ask the Minister of Finance to elaborate a little on the importance of local media and local radio. Those of us who live in the regions do not get their news from the major national media. The news that is personally relevant to us comes from very local media, a sector that we absolutely must support.
I would like to know what is included in the economic update and, more broadly, what the government intends to do to ensure that our residents have access to the news that matters most to them, in other words, the news that directly affects them.
Mr. Chair, I have to congratulate my colleague once again. She has been on top of this issue. We have seen in newsrooms across Quebec and Canada how important journalists are for our democracy and how important it is to support their work.
That is why we launched consultations, for example, on the Canadian journalism labour tax credit. That is because we know how vital it is to support newsrooms across the country.
On behalf of my colleagues, I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone who is doing that work, because they are playing their part. Both government members and opposition members have a part to play in our democratic system, but journalists also play a very important part.
Indeed, we announced measures in the spring economic statement to support the work of journalists—
Mr. Chair, before I begin, I would like to note that I will be speaking for 10 minutes and sharing the last five minutes with my friend, the incredible member for Montmorency—Charlevoix, who will conclude these remarks.
My colleagues have been asking the minister questions for nearly three hours now, but unfortunately, we have not received any answers to our real questions.
Minister, I will give you another chance. It has been three hours, so I understand that you are tired. That is just how the human body works.
Mr. Chair, I am sure the minister is getting a little tired, so I will start off slowly. I would like to know whether the minister does his own grocery shopping.
Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for his concern for my health. I would say that I am not doing too bad, health-wise. I ran three kilometres this morning. I am in fairly good shape for a man who will soon turn 56. I am quite willing to continue. I thank the member for starting slow. He is an honourable man and he said that I have been answering questions for three hours. I know that the Conservatives do not always like my answers, but I—
Mr. Chair, we have just seen the proof. We have been asking questions for three hours. I asked the easiest possible one: Does the minister do his own grocery shopping? It does not get any simpler than that.
Mr. Chair, I think it is a wonderful experience, because grocery shopping is an opportunity for me to meet my constituents and talk to people from one aisle to the next. It is a great opportunity to interact with constituents.
Before the member resumes asking questions, I would like to remind him that the order adopted by the House entitles each minister to take up to 15 seconds to reply, or longer depending on how many seconds the member has used. We must therefore give the minister the opportunity to reply.
The hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska.
Mr. Chair, thank you for calling me to order. You are quite right.
Here is my second, equally simple question for the minister, who has just confirmed that he does his own grocery shopping: How much does a pound of butter currently cost in Quebec?
Mr. Chair, my colleague is right to say that I do my own grocery shopping. I can tell him that a pound of butter weighing in at 454 grams currently costs exactly $5.50.
Mr. Chair, I would like to know where the minister does his shopping, because at the IGA this morning, a pound of butter was $8.99.
I will follow up with another simple question. How much does a two-litre carton of milk currently cost in Quebec? Can the minister tell us the price of milk?
Mr. Chair, we are going to have fun tonight. I cannot wait. Members can imagine what fun we are going to have. We can tell each other what grocery store we shop at. My colleague can tell me where he gets good deals too.
I would guess that two litres of milk costs $5.50.
Mr. Chair, I have been involved in provincial and federal politics for 10 years. I have to give the minister credit: He came well prepared for the question period when he realized it was a possibility. I congratulate his team.
On March 25, the Prime Minister said that affordability has not been good for over a decade. I want to know whether the minister shares the Prime Minister's opinion.
Mr. Chair, I want to thank my colleague. I think it is important to be very aware of realities. My colleague comes from a rural region too. As members who work in rural communities more specifically, we are keenly aware of our constituents' reality.
What I can say is that affordability is one of the issues that concerns all Canadians. That is why we acted with diligence and care to help Canadians in their time of need.
Mr. Chair, we are talking about affordability. I would like to know what the percentage increase in rent has been in Quebec over the past few years.
Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for raising the issue of housing costs. I should point out that rents have come down across the country. We saw the same trend with residential property prices. They are coming down. In Canada's big cities at least, we are seeing—
Mr. Chair, I am going to have to correct the minister on that response. We are currently seeing an average increase of 3.6% year-over-year and a 30% increase since April 2021.
The $13-billion Build Canada Homes program is a good way to build a number of homes. I would like to know how many housing units are currently being built through Build Canada Homes.
Mr. Chair, my colleague is right that Build Canada Homes is making a difference in the construction of affordable housing.
As far as the statistics are concerned, I would be happy to write to him and provide him with the data for Canada as a whole. He will see that I was right when I said that, across Canada, the average price of housing has come down. We are seeing the same trend with residential properties.
Mr. Chair, we are talking about the number of homes built by this new organization established by the Liberal government, Build Canada Homes. The figure is 2%.
Only 5,200 housing units out of a target of 500,000 have been built. That represents 2% of the target. At that rate, it would take nearly 50 years to meet the target.
Is the minister aware that this cannot work at that pace? Why create a new organization like Build Canada Homes?
Mr. Chair, I have a statistic to support my colleague's point. Nationwide, housing prices have dropped by $160 compared to two years ago.
In fact, in major cities like Vancouver and Toronto, the drop has been even more pronounced.
Yes, rent has gone down across Canada compared to two years ago.
Mr. Chair, Build Canada Homes is another agency that the Liberal government just established. That means even more red tape, and we have not seen any real results in terms of new housing.
I want to come back to another subject: the space launch pad in Nova Scotia.
A private company is leasing land from the provincial government for $13,500 per year. That same private company then turned around and sublet the land to the Liberal federal government for $20 million per year.
To make this even more profitable, a 10-year contract will be signed. We are talking about $200 million.
I repeat: A private company is leasing land from the provincial government for $13,500 a year. That same company turned around and sublet the same land to the Liberal federal government for $20 million per year for 10 years, or $200 million.
My question for the minister is simple. Is this sound management of public finances? Would he have signed this agreement if this were his own money?
Mr. Chair, I would like to add a few points. I would like to give him a precise answer.
For 19 consecutive months, we have seen a decline in housing prices nationwide.
Regarding the issue of space launches, I think my colleague needs to take a step back and consider the benefits of being able to launch spacecraft from Canada.
This is a matter of national security. I can tell him that I would be happy to introduce him to astronauts and arrange for him to speak with people on the American side. He will understand that Canso, Nova Scotia, is one of the few locations from which one can reach geostationary orbit. This is an issue of national security for the country.
He should be pleased to see that we are investing in the space sector.
Mr. Chair, I hope that Canadians are watching. I just asked the minister to explain how we entered into a 10-year contract worth $20 million a year when a private company is renting that land for $13,500 a year.
His response is that he is going to introduce me to some astronauts to avoid talking about this mismanagement.
Again, a private company is renting property from the provincial government for $13,500 a year. That same company then turns around and rents out that same property to the federal government for $20 million a year for 10 years, or $200 million—
I have to interrupt the member to give the Minister of Finance a chance to respond, since there are only 15 seconds remaining.
Mr. Chair, I want to help my colleague. I think so highly of him that I want to introduce him to the people at the Canadian Space Agency so that he understands how important it is for Canada to have space launch capabilities. It is a matter of security. It is important for Canada—
Mr. Chair, the minister has been taking questions for a little over three hours now, but we have not gotten any real answers so far, just a lot of hot air.
I will stick to the facts. We want to avoid being partisan, so we will stick to the facts. It is a fact that we have a $66.9-billion deficit this year. That is the biggest deficit in the history of the country, outside of the pandemic. What is worse, the Liberals are planning to spend an average of $59 billion per year for the next five years. They will rack up a deficit of $59 billion per year for the next five years.
My question for the minister is very simple. At what point does it become unacceptable to burn through taxpayers' money like that?
Mr. Chair, I am so glad to hear such an excellent question from my colleague. He will be happy to hear that the deficit happens to be $11 billion lower than anticipated in budget 2025. We restored fiscal discipline in this country.
I will even help the hon. member out, because he will need a clip for that. He can ask the IMF, which is independent. The IMF does not need a clip to explain that to his constituents. The IMF says that Canada's fiscal position is the strongest in the G7. I think that is what my colleague should tell his constituents.
Mr. Chair, I do not need a clip. I think people like to know what is going on over here and get informed through clips. That is how they learn about the government's out-of-control spending.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer is independent. I have just been told that we are dealing with independent officers, people who are being independently monitored. That is great. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that the debt-to-GDP ratio will increase by 43.7% by 2030. Is he way off the mark or is that some bad news?
Mr. Chair, I am once again pleased that my colleague quoted the Parliamentary Budget Officer because he confirmed the following himself. I will quote him in English.
[English]
The Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed “that the government is on track to [meet] its two fiscal anchors”, a declining deficit-to-GDP ratio and balanced operating spending by 2028-29. The PBO assesses current fiscal policy as sustainable.
[Translation]
Those are the words of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who said that Canada's fiscal position is clearly sustainable—
Mr. Chair, I asked the question in French. Perhaps the minister should get his answer translated more quickly. I would prefer to get an answer in French. The people listening to us would prefer to hear answers in the same language the question was asked in.
It was just mentioned that the government ran up the biggest deficit in Canadian history. Not only that, but the government will continue to run bigger deficits for the next five years. The Liberals' first instinct was to charge $25 billion to Canadians' credit card to create a sovereign debt fund. Why are they trying to get even more money when they have spent more than any other government in the history of our country?
Mr. Chair, our first instinct was to reduce the deficit. My colleague should celebrate the fact that our deficit is $11 billion lower than projected in 2025. He will realize that even the 2025-26 debt will be lower in 2026-27. What we are demonstrating to Canadians is that we are managing the public purse responsibly and soundly. I am sure that this is what his constituents want to see.
Mr. Chair, it is interesting that the minister would mention fiscal responsibility. The deficit is forecasted to be $65 billion in 2027, $63.5 billion in 2028, $58 billion in 2029, $56 billion in 2030 and $53 billion in 2031. Under the previous prime minister, we had a $31-billion deficit. The Liberals boast about their fiscal responsibility, but I think they should show a bit more restraint.
I am going to ask another question and go back to the one I asked earlier. The Liberals have created a sovereign debt fund. Are they aware that the British Parliament tried the same thing but refused to call it a sovereign wealth fund because it was built on debt? Is the minister aware of that?
Mr. Chair, I will once again reassure my colleague this evening. Canada has the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7, at 10.2%. By way of comparison, Germany's ratio is 47.2%, the U.K.'s ratio is 93.8%, the United States' ratio is 96.7%, and France's ratio is 108%. This shows how well we are managing our public finances. Our debt-to-GDP ratio is the lowest among all G7 countries.
[English]
Mr. Chair, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
Federal civil servants working partly from home are being—
A reminder to members that Standing Order 16(2) still applies. Members cannot cross between the Speaker and the member who is speaking.
I cannot recognize the member, but for the benefit of the member for Vancouver Kingsway, he can restart his time. He can begin again from the start.
Mr. Chair, federal civil servants working partly from home are being forced to return full-time to an office, even where there is no place to put them. There is no compelling reason to work from an office. It will negatively affect their quality of life and productivity, and it will cost the government more money.
Why are Liberals pursuing a policy that is so irrational?
Mr. Chair, we have taken measures to have civil servants return to the office. I think these measures are in line with the best practices seen in the industry. We have done that in a compassionate and reasonable way to make sure that people—
Mr. Chair, the government claimed that suspending the gas tax would save Canadians 10¢ a litre. When the suspension came into effect, the national average gas price was $1.69 a litre. Today, it is $1.83 a litre, and $2 a litre in Vancouver.
Does the minister believe that oil companies are pocketing at least some portion of the tax cut?
Mr. Chair, I am delighted that my colleague would refer to the suspension of the federal fuel excise tax. Indeed, this is a measure that is helping Canadians across the country. My colleague would well note that the biggest proportion of what we see at the pump is obviously the price of crude, and we have seen—
Mr. Chair, oil companies are set to make some $90 billion in profits this year as a result of the attack on Iran.
Why will the government not tax those excess profits?
Mr. Chair, my colleague is right. If we take it in the words of the executive director of the International Energy Agency, we are going to “the most severe energy crisis” that we have ever seen, so obviously the price at the pump in Canada is affected by global events, but we are happy—
Mr. Chair, Liberals are planning to sell off Canada's ports and airports. When the U.K. privatized Heathrow, costs skyrocketed and service declined. Today, the governments of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and China control major stakes in that airport.
Has the government conducted a full national security review of the risks posed by foreign and state-linked entities acquiring ownership of Canada's strategic infrastructure?
Mr. Chair, what we said in the spring economic update was that we would gather the relevant information from airport authorities so that we can do the proper due diligence and assess what is best for Canadians. I think Canadians understand that we need to modernize the way that we build, operate and maintain public infrastructure in this country.
Mr. Chair, does the minister expect that service quality will be improved by privatizing Canada's airports?
Mr. Chair, we are always making sure that every decision we make will be in the best interest of Canadians. We want to improve services to make sure that we, as a government and as Canadians, can invest in more infrastructure in this country. That is why we have made general—
Mr. Chair, does the minister expect that introducing a profit element will lead to lower airport fees in Canada?
Mr. Chair, as I said to my hon. colleague, for whom I have enormous respect, I work with him very well. By the way, I want to thank him for his contribution over the years. We have done many things together.
What he is going to find in this spring economic update is in fact that we are—
Mr. Chair, the Prime Minister made a campaign promise to protect pharmacare and sign agreements with all outstanding provinces and territories, yet the government has refused to sign any new agreements or allocate funding to cover all Canadians.
Can the minister explain to the millions of people who cannot afford their medication why this promise has been broken?
Mr. Chair, Canadians know that they can always trust the government to protect programs that are key to Canadians. I think that, in terms of national affordability benefits for Canadians, we have always been there to support Canadians in times of need. We will continue to do so.
Mr. Chair, can the minister confirm if the Liberals are planning to eliminate pharmacare entirely when the current agreements expire in 2029?
Mr. Chair, my colleague knows very well that we have a suite of measures to help Canadians in times of need. We have introduced landmark programs such as the Canada child benefit, the national school food program, the Canada disability benefit—
Mr. Chair, in the last election the Liberals pledged to double Canada's rate of residential construction to 500,000 homes per year over the next decade, but according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the government will produce only 26,000 homes by 2030 through its flagship Build Canada Homes.
Can the Minister explain this massive gap between what was promised and what is being delivered with respect to affordable housing?
Mr. Chair, we have made generational investments in housing. In fact, if we look at the cost of housing measures from 2026 through to 2030‑31, we are looking at about $56 billion in investments to make sure that we build the homes that Canadians need in this country.
Mr. Chair, the government plans to spend 5% of Canada's GDP on defence by 2035. That is a greater share of our economy than the U.S. currently spends on its military. The PBO estimates that meeting this target will require $159 billion a year in core defence spending.
How does the government intend to pay for this dramatic increase?
Mr. Chair, I think Canadians understand the world is changing and that we as Canadians need to ensure the sovereignty of our territory. We need to protect our north. We need to protect our communities. Canada as a NATO member is willing to do its part, and we have made record investments to protect our country.
Mr. Chair, the government is slashing $60 billion across federal departments and programs. With over $2 billion in cuts to indigenous programs alone, what impact will these reductions have on communities already facing significant infrastructure and service gaps?
Mr. Chair, my colleague will remember that when we did the comprehensive expenditure review, we identified $60 billion in savings. We were very careful in doing that to protect a number of departments, including those that relate to indigenous services.
Mr. Chair, why are the Liberals allowing companies to use surveillance pricing to harvest Canadians' personal data in order to charge them higher prices, instead of banning this new form of price gouging in an affordability crisis?
Mr. Chair, the member will remember that when I was the industry minister we made historic investments to increase the resources and the enforcement capabilities of the Competition Bureau of Canada. I know that it will do its work to protect—
Mr. Chair, I wish the hon. minister a good evening. I will watch my time closely and try to give him adequate time to respond because I hope to have a conversation more than a grilling.
I note that the hon. minister referred frequently to the International Energy Agency as authoritative. I wonder if he noted that last month the executive director, Fatih Birol, said that based on the global experience of the U.S. and Israeli attack on Iran and the geopolitical instability around fossil fuels, the days of fossil fuels are numbered, that the world is shifting more quickly to renewables and electrifying, and that there would be a steep decline in any demand for oil in the future.
I wonder if the various investments that are described as subsidies and investment tax credits in budget 2025 and in the spring economic update have been subjected to a risk assessment of what the Prime Minister once referred to as what happens when we have unburnable carbon and there is no market for it.
Have we seen in the finance department a real assessment of the risks of assuming that investing in fossil fuels is a good bet for this country?
Mr. Chair, my colleague is a very close colleague in the House, and I am delighted and honoured that she is staying so late to participate in this debate.
I did, in fact, meet with Fatih Birol. I had dinner with him when he came here to receive a prize. In fact, what he said to us and also to the G7, and I will give members a preview, is that the world energy infrastructure is being redesigned and that countries are looking at countries like Canada, which offer stability, predictability and opportunity over the long term.
That is why we said that Canada is an energy superpower. We can play a big role in conventional, renewable and also nuclear energy. I think more and more we will see countries wanting Canada to be their partner of choice, whether in Asia or in Europe. However, I want to reassure her that with respect to the investment tax credit, I think Canada stands out as one of the countries among the G7 that support more investment into renewable energy.
Mr. Chair, I thank the minister for his very kind comments.
I want to turn to a perennial challenge for Canada's economy and ask where the minister sees his government's efforts to deal with the productivity crisis going. We are not making any headway since back when David Dodge first declared that we had a crisis in productivity. This is my analysis, and I could be dead wrong on this. Certainly in countries and sectors that are dominated by oligopolies, we have a problem where there is a relatively small number of firms dominating an entire sector.
It is pretty well known that Canada's telecommunications sector, banking sector and the large grocery store chains lack the kind of competitiveness that would lead to better productivity. However, a multifactorial issue for productivity occurs when we export a relatively large proportion as raw material without value added.
I wonder if the minister has any thoughts on how Canada can improve productivity or can point to any measures in the existing financial documents of the last year that actually would make a difference in improving our productivity.
Mr. Chair, I can hear, from my colleague's question, the depth of analysis that she has made. That is why it is always a pleasure to engage with her in this House.
She is right on competition. We know that competition is key to providing more choices and better prices for consumers. That is why, when I was the industry minister, we put more tools in the tool box of the Competition Bureau. She will remember, for example, that I gave it subpoena power. At the time it was asking for information and people voluntarily could decide whether to give it. Now it has more enforcement power.
When it comes to productivity and innovation, the member would see that the productivity superdeduction is one of the tools that we have made in order to allow small and medium-sized businesses to make more investment, because they can immediately expense their expenses. They have immediate expensing of what they invest in capital, R and D, buildings, innovation and AI. We wanted to help companies with tax measures to make sure that they could make these capital investments that would help them to grow their businesses.
The member may have seen the publication from the OECD or the International Monetary Fund that identified the productivity superdeduction, one of the tools in the tool box, as one of the best practices in the G7. Canada has been very much incentivizing small and medium-sized businesses to make these capital investments to become more productive.
Mr. Chair, I ask the hon. minister if he would not agree with me that we have seen a steady stream of efforts to get Canadians corporations to invest in themselves and reinvest in R and D, and it is a string of failures, as David Dodge pointed out. The tools that we have tried just have not worked, and then people tend to turn on the corporate sector, which it does not appreciate. They say that the sector is not investing in itself and it is its fault.
I am just hoping that we can learn lessons from the past and decide that it is time to ensure that we actually use Canadian workers in Canada to further process our raw materials and not ship them out raw. Might the government be thinking of putting in some measures that would encourage that?
Mr. Chair, my colleague is so right. We want to do more transformation, and I think she will be happy with team Canada strong. The fact is that we say we are going to train and help 80,000 to 100,000 young people with their Red Seal and to get into the trades, because if we want to build this country, we need young people. We need young people to get into the trades.
This is going to help provide more opportunities for young people in this country to participate in building this country at a speed and scale we have not seen in generations. We are very much focused on the youth. We are very much focused on helping workers. We are very much focused on working with unions as well. They do great work in training workers. We want to build together, because we want to build a Canada for all. That is why we are focusing on workers, on young people and on small and medium-sized businesses to help us build this country.
Mr. Chair, we are here borrowing $25 billion to start a sovereign wealth fund, but we have $793 billion in assets in the Canada pension plan, managed by the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. Most of those investments go to the United States. The vast majority of them go to countries other than Canada. We have had some—
I am bound by the rules of the House, and the Chair is asking me to respond.
Mr. Chair, I got maybe the beginning of the question, and I would say that people are seeing the investment fund in Canada as best in class in the world. I would think the Canada Strong fund that—
Mr. Chair, I am having a very hard time understanding what the Liberal EV and auto strategy is. I have a series of questions for the minister, and I hope he will actually try to answer the questions I am asking.
Minister, your government announced the end of the zero-emission vehicle mandate. Is it your position that there is still no zero-emission vehicle mandate in Canada for automobiles?
Before I allow the minister to respond, I will just remind members to ask the questions through the Chair, not directly to the minister.
The hon. minister has the floor.
Mr. Chair, I think the question was around the auto strategy. Since I was the industry minister at the time, yes, I think the investments we have made and the attraction of investment was the right thing. I believe that electrification is our north star. I am mindful that there have been delays in some plants and some adoption. This is not unique to Canada. We have seen that in a number of G7 countries—
Yes, Mr. Chair, I am splitting my time.
I asked the minister about a zero-emission vehicle mandate, and he did not answer. I am assuming it is because the minister did not know the answer. In fact, the regulations that the government has put forward actually mean that only a fully electric vehicle will meet the tailpipe emissions target by 2035. Will he agree with me that this is a zero-emission vehicle mandate?
Mr. Chair, as the member will have seen, we have been supporting the industry. We have been making sure that we can attract investments and that we understand the reality of the world today. When it comes to electric vehicles, there have been delays in adoption, and we need to adopt policies that would favour investment in the auto sector to support our workers and the industry. That is what we are doing.
Mr. Chair, it is very frustrating when ministers will not answer questions. That is two questions I have asked, and two questions he did not answer.
Does the minister know how many vehicles were manufactured in Canada in 2025?
Mr. Chair, Canada is one of the very few countries in the G7 that still has a very strong auto sector. That is why my colleague will be happy to see that we have supported workers, we have worked with Unifor and we have worked with unions to make sure that we position the auto industry for success.
Mr. Chair, once again, the minister is either unwilling or unable to answer a question that I am asking. The answer to that question is this: 1.2 million vehicles. Does the minister know, of those 1.2 million vehicles, how many were electric vehicles that were manufactured in Canada?
Mr. Chair, as I have said, what we have been doing in terms of investment, and we can think about the Volkswagen investment, is to prepare the country to make sure that we will have an industry that can support a different kind of technology, whether we are talking about an internal combustion—
Mr. Chair, it is becoming quite embarrassing now. I have asked three questions, and the minister has not even attempted to answer any of them.
I will answer that question as well. It is 20,000 vehicles. Out of 1.2 million vehicles manufactured in Canada, 20,000 of those are fully electric vehicles that will meet the zero-emission vehicle mandate. Does the minister know what percentage that is of the vehicles manufactured in Canada?
Mr. Chair, the member may not like my answers. I know that the Conservatives are allergic to good news, but I am an experienced member of the House and will continue to answer and to provide the facts to Canadians who are watching at home.
What I was saying is that we have made sure that the industry could succeed. Whether we are talking about internal combustion engines or whether we are talking about electric vehicles, I think the member has seen us investing to support the industry.
Mr. Chair, 1.6% of the vehicles manufactured in Canada will meet the Liberal zero-emission vehicles mandate. That means that 98.4% of the vehicles manufactured in Canada will not. Why did the Liberals set up a zero-emission vehicles mandate that will make 98.4% of the vehicles manufactured in Canada illegal by 2035?
Mr. Chair, I am talking about the facts. I am just trying to help the member understand the nature of the industry in Canada, and I will continue to do so because people at home understand that we have different investments in the country. We have been able to attract significant investment. What I said is that we are supporting the industry with respect to internal combustion engines, but at the same time, we have also played a big role in attracting investment in the vehicle of the future, so we have—
Mr. Chair, when he says that electrification is the north star in Canada, and we only manufacture 1.6% of our vehicles as electric, what he must mean by “electrification is the north star in Canada” are the 50,000 Chinese electric vehicles that he is now allowing into Canada.
Is it not really what he means when he says electrification is the future or the north star, that it is the 50,000-plus Chinese electric vehicles that he is going to be bringing into the country?
Mr. Chair, what I am saying is that we need to prepare for the cars of the future. In fact, it is nothing surprising that when the same thing has been done for 100 years and the technology is changed, there is a longer time of adoption. I will just remind my colleague that Tesla took 17 years to be profitable. The Model T of Henry Ford was not an instant success. It is normal that when we do the same thing for a century, we have consumer adoption and change in technology. We can look to Europe and around the world and talk to the manufacturers. We do not need to look at talking points. Talk to the CEOs of the global—
Mr. Chair, if electrification is the future, as he keeps saying, then why did he just give $464 million to Ford to convert its factory, which was going electric, back to an internal combustion engine factory?
Mr. Chair, that is what I said; just look at the record. We need to invest in different technology for now. The north star is the long-term view. That is why we have these investments that prepare us. We need to support the industry with the cars we make today, but also prepare for the future. That is what we see. If we look at the automakers, they have—
Mr. Chair, so in eight and a half years, he is saying that Canadian auto manufacturers will go from producing 1.6% of their vehicles as fully electric to 100%. No, that is absolutely impossible.
The minister said Canada “would never be a back door to cheap Chinese vehicles which are overly subsidized”. Does he still believe that, in light of his government letting in 50,000 Chinese vehicles into Canada every year?
Mr. Chair, let me just correct the record of what I said before, because there were statements made that did not reflect it. What I said is that we are investing in supporting the industry. We need to support the industry with the cars they are making today, but at the same time, if we talk to the OEMs, the car manufacturers, they are also preparing for the cars of the future. Therefore, we want to invest in what they produce today, but also be able to support them when they are going to be producing the cars of the future.
Mr. Chair, the minister also warned that Chinese EV producers benefit from “unfair, non-market practices” and “don't respect labour law and environmental laws”, and yet his government is letting in 50,000 Chinese electric vehicles every year.
Were his words wrong then, or is his position wrong now?
Mr. Chair, we were supporting the auto industry when I was industry minister, and we continue to do that today. We want to position Canadian auto workers for success; they understand that. We have been working with unions very closely. We have been attracting investment like Volkswagen in St. Thomas, which, as I said, is going to build—
Mr. Chair, if electrification is the future, as he keeps saying, then why did Honda just cancel its $15-billion electric vehicle manufacturing plant under his government's watch?
Mr. Chair, my colleague is a very experienced member of the House. He will have seen that in all G7 countries, and I have just come from the G7, these plans have been delayed. What we are saying about the north star is that we need to invest in what they make today, but also prepare for the future.
Mr. Chair, how will Canadian auto manufacturers go from producing 1.6% of their vehicles as full EVs to 100% to meet their EV target, zero-emission vehicle target, in eight years? Can the minister please explain exactly how that is going to happen?
Mr. Chair, I am happy to repeat what I just said, but I know my colleague understood. He is looking for some kind of clip, but he is not going to get it. What I can say tonight is that we want to invest in the vehicles that are—
Mr. Chair, what I am looking for is an actual answer tonight to a single question I have asked, which has not happened, so I will reiterate. There are eight short years to get to the government's zero-emission vehicle mandate. We manufacture 1.6% of vehicles in Canada that will meet that mandate now. What is the plan, if the minister can lay it out now, for the Canadian auto sector to get from 1.6% to 100% in eight years?
Mr. Chair, I am sure my colleague will have seen our auto strategy, which has been presented. We have worked with unions and with the Province of Ontario, among others, to make sure that we will have a resilient auto sector in Canada. I would say that I am proud of the auto workers. I am proud of our industry. I am proud of what they do. Instead of talking down the industry, I think my colleagues should be cheering up and saying we will work together to support the auto industry in Canada.
Mr. Chair, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board has operating expenses of over $1.7 billion. It has an average of over half a million dollars in compensation per employee. I wonder if the minister expects the so-called Canadian sovereign wealth fund to have similar operating costs and expenses.
Mr. Chair, I am happy that my colleague is focusing on the Canadian sovereign wealth fund that we are creating. This is going to be a great instrument to create collective wealth. It is going to be applying the best practices that we see around the world. The governance model will reflect its independence from the government.
Mr. Chair, that obviously had nothing to do with the question, unfortunately.
I now want to ask about youth unemployment. It is a deep concern of mine and for many Canadians. I wonder if the minister agrees that we are facing a youth unemployment crisis in the country.
Mr. Chair, we should always be concerned about youth unemployment on both sides of the aisle, obviously, as Canadians. That is why team Canada strong would provide opportunities for 80,000 to 100,000 young Canadians to get into the trades and get their Red Seal certification so that they can contribute to building the country at this—
Mr. Chair, of course, we are always concerned about this issue, but these are not normal times. I wonder if the minister can confirm that he knows what the rate of youth unemployment is right now in the country and whether he thinks we are in a youth unemployment crisis.
Mr. Chair, what we are seeing in terms of youth unemployment in Canada is not unique to Canada. We see this in other G7 countries. What we are seeing is that the impact of what we are facing in the world in terms of uncertainty has affected a number of industries and has affected youth unemployment in particular. That is why I think we should be happy that we have team Canada strong. We are going to provide opportunities—
Mr. Chair, clearly the minister was not aware. The number is 14.3%, according to the latest StatsCan numbers. That is a very high youth unemployment rate, including against international peers. I am sorry that the minister is not willing to acknowledge tonight that we are facing a youth unemployment crisis. He should acknowledge that, and he should support the necessary actions to address it.
In particular, in today's human resources committee report, there is a recommendation endorsed by all parties to reduce taxes and red tape in order to address concerns about how the taxation and regulatory environment has limited productivity growth and held back youth unemployment. Does he agree with that all-party recommendation, and will he act on it?
Mr. Chair, I want to thank my colleague for focusing on youth unemployment. It is something that every member of the House should be focusing on. That is why the government has taken action. Team Canada strong is going to provide the opportunity and possibility for 80,000 to 100,000 young Canadians to get into the trades. We want them to help us build Canada strong. We want them to help us build this country. This is the kind of measure that is going to help youth in the country, but we can always look at measures that do more for them. We want to support our youth in our country.
Mr. Chair, I am happy to be focused on the youth unemployment issue, but he is not focused on the youth unemployment issue. He did not even know the rate of youth unemployment in this country. He has not answered a single question for me. He has not answered a single question all night.
Again, I want to ask if he agrees or disagrees with the recommendation, from the all-party report from the human resources committee, that the government reduce taxes and red tape in order to address concerns about how the taxation and regulatory environment has limited productivity growth and held back youth employment. Does he agree with that recommendation, and will he act on it?
Mr. Chair, it is unfair to say I have not answered questions. I have been answering questions for more than three hours. I am not sure that any member on that side has answered questions for more than three hours in their lives. They say that I have not answered questions, but they have not answered questions for three hours in their lives.
I agree with the member that we need to focus on reducing red tape. That is why we are taking action to support youth in the country.
Mr. Chair, again, there were no answers.
Does the minister believe that the immigration policies of the government have contributed to youth unemployment?
Mr. Chair, I think immigration in this country has allowed the country to attract some of the best and brightest. This is who we are as Canadians. We are a welcoming nation. I also agree that we need to bring the immigration level to a more sustainable level. That is exactly what we have done as a government.
Mr. Chair, it is a privilege to be able to join today's debate on the estimates and be able to put good questions on behalf of the good people of Kings—Hants to the Minister of Finance.
I want to start by saying, having served for seven years as a member of Parliament, I appreciate the work of the hon. member from Shawinigan. I appreciate his work in his capacity in a variety of files. I have had the chance to see his leadership first-hand.
I want to start by talking about renewable energy. In Nova Scotia, we have seen a tremendous and successful growth of wind power generation. This government has made important decisions around protecting Canada's steel industry, notably putting a surtax on fabricated wind towers that are generated outside of Canada. I know Marmen, for example, in Quebec is a great example of that leadership in Canadian fabricated wind towers.
I have had proponents in Nova Scotia come to me to talk about projects, particularly those that are already under construction or those that have a power purchase agreement. The ability to pivot at this point in the game is quite difficult. They are certainly looking at using Canadian supply chains now that we have the surtax in place.
I want to give compliments to the minister. We have a remission order for fabricated wind towers that were already under construction. Some proponents have suggested an ability to use proponents that already have a power purchase agreement would be a reasonable balancing to make sure that some of these projects can go forward. I know it is a difficult balance.
Is the minister aware of this? Is it something that he could at least consider in the days ahead?
Mr. Chair, let me take a moment to thank the member for Kings—Hants. Everyone in Nova Scotia should know that this member in particular has played a key role in helping us shape our policy. He embodies the best of the best.
Like my colleagues here tonight, they are MPs. They are standing up for their communities. It is fairly late for those who are watching at home. We are getting close to 11 p.m., and these members are here working hard to represent their constituents, to participate in democracy and to hold debates. I would say the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister has been playing a big role. The people of Kings—Hants should be very proud of their member of Parliament because he has spoken not only for them, but also for Nova Scotia and the wind industry, which we know is very important.
We have put together a strategy to double the electricity generation in this country. Oftentimes, we say demography is destiny. I would say that energy is destiny. If we produce more energy in this country, it is certainly going to help our businesses. It is going to help this country to grow.
The member is right that Marmen is a great company. I have been working with him, with the premier of Nova Scotia and the Atlantic premiers to strike that right balance. We need to make sure that projects under construction can benefit from a remission so that we have a framework that, on one hand, supports a key industry in our country and, on the other hand, allows projects to go forward.
I want to thank him for his leadership in informing me and the Government of Canada on how we can strike this right balance. We would expect a member of Parliament to work with the government and to work with ministers. I have seen his example. I am looking around at all my colleagues who have played such a key role in making sure that their policies are reflected in the budget that we presented and in the spring economic update. On behalf of everyone in Kings—Hants, I just want to thank the member for his outstanding work.
Mr. Chair, I appreciate the attention to that matter from the minister. Yes, we do have a great working relationship, and I know that will continue.
We have a lot of small businesses in Kings—Hants. When we talked today in the House about affordability, I chastised some of the Conservative positions in the opposition day motion as being too narrow and not looking at broader affordability measures. Yes, we have already reduced gasoline prices by 28¢ a litre, but I talked about some of the social programs we have put in place, and I also talked about the CPP rate reduction.
In the spring economic update, the government, through the Minister of Finance, is proposing to take the rate reduction from 9.9% down to 9.5%. This is going to save a T4 employee in the economy about $170 a year, which is important. That is more money back in people's pockets. Of course, there is a corresponding connection to the employer not having to put that CPP contribution in, and that can be multiplied by the amount of T4 employees that it has.
Would the minister care to comment on that CPP rate reduction being a small but meaningful policy to move the needle for small businesses and employees across the country?
Mr. Chair, before I do that, I want to thank the staff of the House of Commons. I see these young pages and the staff at the table working hard. I know it is getting late, and I just want to give kudos on behalf of all parliamentarians for the work they are doing on behalf of all of us and to support democracy. To every employee in the House, the security folks and everyone who is working extra late tonight to support our work, I want to thank them on behalf of colleagues.
My colleague is so right. Not only was it a flagship measure, but it was unanimously approved and supported by the provinces. When we make policies, when we talk about a co-operative federalism, this is one of the best examples I can imagine.
We had a meeting with the federal, provincial and territorial ministers. I made the recommendation that we would lower it, because that would be an affordability measure. It would leave more money in the pockets of workers and businesses. Unanimously, the provinces came back and said, “Yes, we support you in that.”
For me, this is a great example of how our country is working and how we should be working with our colleagues in the provinces and territories. We can put proposals on the table and make sure we work together. This is a great example of us working as one country to the benefit of businesses and workers.
Mr. Chair, I represent the largest agricultural riding in Atlantic Canada. Kings—Hants is home to a whole series of different commodity groups and one is the wine sector. We have an emerging grape and wine sector in Kings—Hants. The hon. minister had an opportunity to visit the riding. I know he is a great friend to the agricultural community across the country.
One program that is of deep interest to the wine and grape sector is the wine sector support program. The hon. minister was part of the cabinet in the last government that helped put this program together. I compliment him on his leadership.
This program does not sunset until the next fiscal year, but some of the wine growers in the community that I represent have highlighted it as a great initiative of the federal government being involved in agriculture under a trade-compliant program. I do not expect the minister tonight to have an answer about the future of that program, but he knows the importance of the wine sector across the country.
I am wondering if the minister might talk about that industry, whether it is in Niagara, the Okanagan, Kings—Hants or areas of Brome-Missisquoi. Maybe he could share some of his experience as a member of Parliament in seeing that first-hand and what it means across the country.
Mr. Chair, the member brought me to a number of wineries and a number of food producers. Together, we had round tables. I also think of my colleague who is a farmer who I see in the House tonight. These farmers need to be celebrated. They put food on the table. That is why the national food security strategy is so important, and that is why supporting our farmers is so important.
The member went beyond his normal duty. He went to China, along with the Premier of Saskatchewan, to defend the industry and to defend our canola farmers.
We have always been there for our farmers. We have members in our caucus who have deep experience in farming. This is the richness of the people who are working on the government benches. They have personal experience, they know how the industry works and they give us advice. I would say that the member for Kings—Hants is one great example.
I could name a number of other colleagues who I see in the House tonight who are also contributing very much to the work we are doing. I want to celebrate them tonight, because not only are they helping us to shape policy, but they are the best of the best in representing the interests of their constituents and bringing their experience to this House of Commons.
Mr. Chair, I agree with the hon. minister. He may have been referencing the hon. member for Peterborough and her experience in working in the agriculture sector. Let me go on the record in seconding the minister's belief that the member for Peterborough is a great champion in this House, along with the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead. We have a whole host of leaders in that agricultural space.
There is one thing I want to ask the minister. In the spring economic update, there is an intention from the government to change the mandate of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, CFIA, and also the Pesticides Regulatory Directorate, the former PMRA, to put an economic lens on the decisions. Of course, I know all members of this House would agree that environmental and health safety are paramount, but so too is food security and economic decision-making around the regulators.
The minister has a very big portfolio, but this is part of the work that the government is doing around red tape. Whether they are in Peterborough or Kings—Hants, farmers have pointed to this government leadership as being a great example of trying to look at regulatory agility.
Would the hon. minister be able to speak to the CFIA and PRD amendments specifically, or talk more broadly about regulatory reform and agility and how it is part of our economic growth agenda?
Mr. Chair, it is amazing. We are getting to 11 p.m. and the questions are getting better and better. It is great. I will not say they are coming from this side of the House, but I want to celebrate the member for Peterborough to start with. She is an amazing colleague, but also a great farmer. I want to thank her. Being members of Parliament, bringing our expertise and our experience to the House is what our work is all about.
She is a farmer. She knows how things work. I can tell everyone who is watching in Peterborough that they have an amazing member of Parliament. Every opportunity she has to tell me about the reality of farming in this country, she takes. I want to celebrate her and all the farmers in the country. Wherever they are in the country, we celebrate them, and they should be feeling good that they have people in the House who represent their industry. It is a way of life when one is a farmer. Being both a member of Parliament and a farmer is quite a unique position. I want to thank the member for Compton—Stanstead as well.
To my colleague's point, it is true that when we think about farming, it is also about economic security. I would say the world today realizes the nexus between food security, energy security, economic security and national security. There is this great nexus that is coming together. When it comes to food security, Canadians can count on Canadian farmers. We can play a big role in feeding Canadians. This is why we want to make structural investments.
The member for Kings—Hants has been helping us. Not only do we have the groceries benefit that is going to come to Canadians, with 12 million Canadians receiving it on June 5, but we have also made structural investments in greenhouses, for example, so we can grow more. During the year, we might import 60% of our fresh produce, but when it gets to winter, we get to 80% or 90%. One way of having better management of the cost is to grow more in Canada, to become more resilient. I want to thank the member for Kings—Hants again for bringing me to some of these facilities to better understand how we can support that, with the member for Peterborough—
Mr. Chair, the hon. member for Waterloo is a great colleague. She and I have talked a lot about Canada's fiscal position.
We have a AAA credit rating. We have the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. We have a strong fiscal position.
I do not want the minister to take a whole lot of time, because I only have two minutes, but does he have quick comments on Canada's fiscal position and how he would message that to Canadians?
As I said, Mr. Chair, the questions are getting better and better. I think we will ask if we should extend a bit now because we are getting into the real issues.
I want to thank the member for Waterloo, who hosted me recently. We have seen so much innovation in that region. Mr. Chair, I know you do not have the time to travel with me everywhere I go in the country, but you should come once to Waterloo with me. You would see that the member of Parliament is so well respected by everyone.
She represents the University of Waterloo. Every person I have met there knows the work she is doing. She has been an amazing ambassador for the innovation and the work in Waterloo. I want to applaud her and celebrate her work. She has been a—
Mr. Chair, I am sorry I had to cut the minister off. He is great, but I have to get in one last question.
I see the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets, who has done great work on China, on the file around lobsters and working with the government to remove tariffs. I see the hon. member for Labrador and the member for Avalon.
I can say that it is fisheries that matter in Atlantic Canada. It is the base of our economy. I would be remiss as a member from Nova Scotia to not ask the minister in the time we have remaining to talk about small craft harbours and a generational investment.
Why does the hon. minister not take us away on that happy note?
Mr. Chair, I am going to turn my back just for a second to say that the member for South Shore—St. Margarets came to my office to advocate for small craft harbours. She was there. She put her fist on the table. She said that I needed to listen and that we are going to do something. We did—
[Translation]
Order. It being 10:57 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today and Standing Order 81(4), all votes are deemed reported.
The committee will rise and I will now leave the chair.
[English]
Publication Explorer
Publication Explorer