Debates of Sept. 22nd, 2025

Opposition Motion—Oil and Gas Emissions Cap

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am not certain of the question, but I will say this: We know we are facing something that is not easy. It is time to stop sugarcoating it. Whenever I hear someone say the economy and the environment go together, and over the years I have heard many Liberals say this, I always picture Thelma and Louise, with their hands clasped, going over the edge of the cliff.

The decisions we need to make now are not easy, and the longer we procrastinate, the harder those decisions get. As a result, we need to figure out how to decarbonize quickly, while building those sections of our economy that stand to benefit, including new technologies. The ability to have a 100% renewable energy electricity grid, east-west and north-south, will drive a lot of economic growth in this country. It is possible, but it does not happen without making some very tough choices, like keeping in place the emissions cap.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is hard to know where to begin with the speech that was just delivered by the member from the Green Party, who took her entire time to just spread a lot of misinformation and untruths about Canada's driving industry.

Canada has an abundant series of natural resources. We have an opportunity right now where we can choose either to continue developing our natural resources or to leave them in the ground. We know her opinion is that she wants to leave them in the ground.

The challenge is that Canada is importing half a billion barrels of oil every day. The choice is this: Do we want Canadian oil or do we want dirty dictator oil? What would the member prefer?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I do not think I said a single thing that represented misinformation, but the position of the Green Party is that we should not import any foreign oil. We should use only Canadian oil and Canadian fossil fuels as we conduct a phase-out and a phase-down. That only makes sense.

By the way, for dictator oil, people point to Saudi Arabia. The only refinery in Canada that uses Saudi oil is, again, the Irving refinery I mentioned earlier.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure for me to rise to speak in the House on behalf of the people of Calgary Midnapore.

The motion we have before us today is, "That the House call on the Prime Minister to immediately repeal the oil and gas emissions cap, which in effect is a production cap.” We are standing here today talking about the emissions cap, but what we are really talking about is not just the emissions cap. We are talking about the future of a nation.

Failure is not an option here. Failure is not an option, because hundreds of thousands of jobs are on the line. Failure is not an option, because seniors are starving and are going to food banks. They are on fixed incomes. They do not know where they are going to find their next meal. Failure is not an option, because we have record youth unemployment. This is an epidemic in our country. Failure is not an option, because housing costs are through the roof. Failure is not an option, because investment is fleeing this country.

When we are talking about the emissions cap, we are talking about the obstacles that the Liberal government created for over a decade, obstacles that prevented Canada from becoming a prosperous nation. We are a nation today that has created a system of dependence and a culture of desperation, one that could have been avoided by investing in our natural resources sector.

The Prime Minister won his mandate for one reason, and one reason only. Canadians, for better or for worse, put their trust in him to do what he said he was going to do: build a prosperous Canada.

The Conservatives gracefully supported Bill C-5 in the spring. We want to see the government succeed in its major projects. We did everything we could to give licence to the government. We wanted to give the Prime Minister everything he needed to begin these major projects, to fulfill his promise to Canadians. However, we have yet to see one new project announced or one shovel in the ground.

Relative to today's motion, we have yet to see the Prime Minister commit to taking the first steps to achieving these major projects, of which eliminating the production cap is only one step. We have offered the following suggestions to the Prime Minister and the Liberal government several times, on which they refused to act: repeal Bill C-69 and repeal Bill C-48.

Bill C-69, as members will remember, is the “no more pipelines” bill, the bill that prohibits any type of genuine infrastructure being built in this country that allows for our prosperity. Bill C-48, the “no more tankers” ban, does not permit Canada to export its natural resources abroad.

We could also eliminate the industrial carbon tax. The government likes to say it has eliminated the carbon tax. We know that this is not true. The industrial carbon tax still exists, and this is another step that the Prime Minister needs to take, in addition to immediately repealing the oil and gas emissions cap.

Until the Liberals take these steps, they have yet to prove to us, the official opposition, and to Canadians that they are serious about digging us out of this hole that they created and restoring quality of life to Canadians. Canadians are suffering.

The government just received an F from Food Banks Canada on food security. One cannot get a worse grade than an F. Canadians earning less than $75,000 are spending 57.3% on groceries, utilities and transportation. Food inflation is rising 70% faster than the government's inflation target. For all of these reasons, Canadians are suffering. For all of these reasons, the Prime Minister needs to keep his promise of restoring Canada's prosperity.

What hope has the Prime Minister given the official opposition? What hope has the Prime Minister given Canadians? His record from before he arrived in the House of Commons is not encouraging. We all know the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour, so let us take a look at the past behaviour of the Prime Minister.

When asked by the leader of the official opposition at industry committee if he supported Justin Trudeau's decision to veto the Northern Gateway pipeline, the Prime Minister replied, “given both [the] environmental and commercial reasons...I think it's the right decision.” That is interesting. It sounds like a 180 compared with his position today.

Then, just six months later, at COP26, the Prime Minister said, “we have...far, far too many fossil fuels in the world” and “as much as half of oil reserves, proven reserves, need to stay in the ground”. These are words from a Prime Minister who is trying to convince us that he wants to restore the promise of Canada and restore the prosperity of Canada. How can Canadians be encouraged by these words or believe his sincerity about doing something?

Let us look at his record since he got here, which is also an indicator that his actions match his words. Everyone knows that the right thing to do when preparing to do something is to underpromise and over-deliver. Let us see if the Prime Minister has in fact done this. This is the most basic of lessons for anyone, whether it is in Dale Carnegie or for schoolchildren. It is to underpromise and over-deliver.

All major projects that have been announced to date were projects that were previously announced. No oil pipeline made that list of major projects. Without introducing a budget, the Prime Minister has doubled the deficit, which is expected to be the largest non-pandemic deficit in Canadian history, giving us the fastest-shrinking economy in the G7 after he promised the fastest growth; homebuilding dropping like a rock, when he promised to double homebuilding; and a record $54 billion in investment that has fled the country.

The Prime Minister won the election on his message of “elbows up”, saying that he was the person to handle Donald Trump's threats of tariffs and annexation. Today, the tariffs remain in place, with 50% on steel and aluminum and 25% on autos. Can I point out the obvious fact? There is no trade deal signed. For all of these reasons, we must question the Prime Minister's sincerity and his ability to deliver on what he said he would do.

The next thing we have to look at is the team that the Prime Minister has surrounded himself with. We look at the present Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, who stated, “COP28 calls for groundbreaking goals to triple renewable energy [and] double energy efficiency, and, for the first time ever, we reached a historic consensus to move away from fossil fuels in energy systems.” He went on to say about pipelines:

The atmosphere and our climate certainly don't need them. Many of us believe we cannot build pipelines and meet our international climate commitments at the same time.

And with the world working around the clock to avoid the worst effects of climate change, it makes no sense from an ethical and a moral perspective to produce and ship more of a substance that is causing a problem, that disrupts the future of our children and our grandchildren.

This was from a minister close to the Prime Minister.

In addition, we have the words of the Alberta premier. She said, “I am very concerned the Prime Minister has appointed what appears to be yet another anti-oil and gas Environment Minister.... Not only is she a self-proclaimed architect of the designation of plastics as toxic, but she is a staunch advocate against oil sands expansion, proponent of phasing out oil and gas”. The premier also said she was put off by the minister's close ties to long-time thorn in her side, the Minister of Identity and Culture, to whom the current Minister of Environment served as parliamentary secretary for four years.

When we look at the motion that was presented here today, we see it is clear that the Prime Minister is not sincere. As a young woman in university, I was to meet my sister to show her around the university, but I did not meet her. Instead, I spent time with my friends, and when I got home, I got a lecture from my father. He told me that sincerity is doing what one says one is going to do.

It is time for the Prime Minister to keep the promise he made to Canadians in order to win the election and do what he said he was going to do, and that starts with eliminating the production cap.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

It being 6:39 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, we would request a recorded vote, please.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Tuesday, September 23, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find a willingness to call it 6.54 p.m. so we can begin Adjournment Proceedings.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Climate Change

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pursuing a question that I asked the Minister of Environment in question period on May 30, when we were in the midst of unprecedented wildfires throughout the Prairies and the state of emergency as it existed in several prairie provinces. I pointed out that we were, at last count, only 7% below 2005 levels, with a due date for our emissions reductions to 40% to 45% by 2030. The response from the hon. Minister of Environment was to not answer the question that I had asked, which was, “When will the government present a plan?”

Certainly by that time, we knew that the new government, under the new Prime Minister, was cancelling plans put in place by the previous government, so my question was very pressing. We knew by May 30 we were not close to meeting our target that is due in five years, so I asked when the government would replace the things that are being cut that deal with emissions reductions so that we have a chance to ensure a livable world for our children. The minister did not answer the question as to when we would see a plan, but she did confirm that the Liberals would “make sure that we reduce our emissions, fight climate change and keep Canadians safe.”

Here we are some months later, and we now have the very clear and devastating report from the Canadian Climate Institute that takes us forward and says what we can now expect in terms of emissions reductions from Canada. Those were the legally binding targets that we once filed, called nationally determined contributions, with the United Nations under the terms of the Paris Agreement, in which I have to say Canada took a lead role in negotiating, just as we did in 1992 with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. We were the first industrialized country to both sign and ratify that treaty. It is legally binding, and through it, our Paris Agreement targets are legally binding.

On our commitment to reduce our emissions by 40% to 45% below 2005 levels by 2030, we knew we were falling short when I asked the question in May. Now we know from the Canadian Climate Institute report of a few days ago that this is how far behind we are: We can expect at this point that we are on track to reduce our emissions by 20% to 25% below 2005 levels.

The numbers make people's eyes glaze over. What do they mean? They mean that when people speak of drought in the Prairies in a particularly bad year, it is a trend that may well be unstoppable, not of drought as individual episodes but of aridification as a process that will dry out areas that are breadbaskets and make it very difficult for prairie farmers to survive.

When we look at what is happening across the country, we are seeing wildfire after wildfire, extreme flood events and extreme heat dome events, and around the world, we are seeing people dying from the effects of a climate crisis. We know and understand what must be done, and yet we fail to do it. Is it cognitive dissonance? Is it opportunism and political strategies that come ahead of saving the lives of our own children?

I ask the minister this: When will we see a plan?

[Wade Grant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, Canadians are living through the climate crisis in real time. Fires, floods, droughts and storms are happening with a frequency and severity we have never seen before. I have family and friends who have lived through these events. The impacts on lives, livelihoods and communities are clear. The costs are growing each year. That is why climate action is not optional. It is essential to protecting Canadians, strengthening our economy and preparing for the future.

Canada does have a plan. We are committed to fighting climate change and are working to launch a climate competitiveness strategy soon to advance that commitment and to position Canada to lead in a global economy that increasingly wants decarbonized goods, services, technology and know-how. Achieving this requires a coordinated mix of measures that both cut emissions and builds resilience against climate risks.

Since 2015, Canada has made significant progress. Back then, projections showed emissions rising 9% above 2005 levels by 2030. Today, we have bent that curve downward. Greenhouse gas emissions in 2024 were 7% below 2005 levels, even as the population and economy grew. Canada's economy is now over 30% less carbon intensive than it was in 2005. A key part of this progress is reducing methane, a potent greenhouse gas responsible for about 30% of observed global warming to date.

Between 2013 and 2023, fugitive methane emissions in Canada's oil and gas sector decreased by 33%. Canada is now a co-convener of the global methane pledge, leading international efforts to cut methane emissions by at least 30% by 2030. At home, we are on track to exceed that goal, with more than a 30% reduction expected. These actions deliver multiple benefits, including cleaner air, fewer health impacts, and a competitive advantage for Canadian energy and technologies in a world increasingly focused on low-carbon solutions.

At the same time, Canada is investing in resilience. The national adaptation strategy was developed in collaboration with provincial and territorial governments, indigenous partners, the private sector, non-governmental organizations, adaptation experts and youth. Its goal is to guide actions across five key areas: disaster preparedness; health and well-being; nature and biodiversity; infrastructure; and the economy and workers. The Government of Canada's adaptation action plan was released alongside this strategy. It outlines over 70 actions to guide federal contributions to achieving Canada's adaptation goals. Canada's national adaptation strategy sets out a vision for safer communities, stronger infrastructure and a more resilient economy.

The government's plan is clear. We are cutting emissions, investing in clean industries, and building resilience. These steps are credible, measurable and designed to protect Canadians while growing a strong, sustainable economy.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have another opportunity to welcome a new member to this place, the member for Vancouver Quadra. In the language of Musqueam people, I think it is Hul'q'umi'num', hych'ka siam.

Unfortunately, there was not an answer there for when we would see the new programs that would replace eliminating the consumer carbon price. There is not an answer there for what we are going to do if there is a pause on electric vehicles.

With my 30 seconds left, I will only ask this question of the hon. member: How do we explain to our grandchildren that we let them down so badly when we failed to take the steps that we could have taken when we still had time to ensure a viable biosphere and a livable human civilization for them? The scientists are clear. Why do the politicians fail the children?

[Wade Grant, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague in my language of Hul'q'umi'num: hay čxʷ q̓ə.

Canadians expect climate action that is practical, science-based and effective. That is what is under way. Our plan combines emission reductions, particularly in methane, with investments in clean energy and resilience tools that help communities prepare for the risks that we already face.

Progress is real. Emissions are declining. The economy is becoming less carbon-intensive, and Canadian innovations are helping lead the global transition.

Meeting our Paris targets requires steady work and collaboration with provinces, territories, indigenous communities and industry. Canada is committed to this path because a safe, clean, and competitive future depends on it.

Natural Resources

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to be here this evening to maybe get some more answers to the question I asked in question period before we rose last spring.

We had an election and an election campaign, and a lot of commitments were made by the Liberal Party about building infrastructure. There was a lot of talk about pipelines during the campaign but not a lot of action after.

The Prime Minister has been in office for six months now, and he has finally announced his Major Projects Office. However, the big, breathless announcement that the Liberals ran out to make was about five projects that were already being looked at and already halfway to getting regulatory approval. I can think of one, Foran Mining in Saskatchewan up by Creighton. I have a friend who works for Foran Mining. It has been working on its project for four years now, so I would not say it is a new project.

The question I asked in question period was about building pipelines and about the hard-working men and women at Evraz steel in Regina, where, at the peak, when products and pipelines were being built, there were 1,100 or 1,200 people working at the steel plant. They are now down to about half or even fewer than half of that many employees. These are hard-working families that depend on the good jobs at Evraz steel to make ends meet, and these men and women are now struggling to get by, living paycheque to paycheque. I wonder if there will be a pipeline project in the next tranche of major projects that will be announced. Perhaps more projects will be reannounced.

In Canada, we are blessed with an abundance of natural resources. I have seen polling done throughout the provinces, and there is a desire to get major projects built in the country once again and to get people back to work in industries like steelmaking and pipeline building. A lot of good, hard-working unionized employees in the building trades are looking to see if the government's actions will follow the talk. Is it going to talk the talk or actually walk it? That is what people in Regina are asking about regarding the Liberal government.

A lot of promises were made, as with the slogan “build back better”. There have been a lot of slogans from the Liberal government over the last 10 years. I have been here since 2019, and I have not seen a lot of projects being built.

I will end with one last comment. For some projects that were being built, the issue was the dumping of cheap steel. Canadian steel is not being used in some of the projects that have moved forward. China, India and other countries are flooding the market with cheap steel that is not as environmentally friendly and is not as good quality as what is being built in my city of Regina, in Hamilton and in Canada.

I would love a response from whoever is going to take the question. When will projects be built? When will new projects be announced, not old projects being reannounced? I would love to make sure the projects that get built use good, environmentally sustainable Canadian steel.

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, Canadians have always come together to seize new opportunities and set paths for future generations, and in this moment of challenge, we will see the same. Canadians can find consensus even when it seemed previously unattainable.

Our government has said repeatedly that it is prepared to work towards building new energy infrastructure in many forms. That includes interprovincial electricity transmission, and it extends to pipeline projects if consensus exists and if proponents come forward. However, there is an important principle guiding this openness: Clean technology must also be put in place so that we can meaningfully reduce associated emissions.

Our ambition as a country is nothing short of being a clean and conventional energy superpower. Increasingly, our customers are demanding oil and gas developed to high social and environmental standards. As mentioned, steel, for example, is built to those high environmental standards. In a changing climate and in an uncertain world, it is a sentiment Canadians share.

We are committed to a future in which Canadian energy projects lead in both economic value for our workers and communities and in climate responsibility and innovation. It is the better way, and doing better is going to take all of us. That is why we work with the provinces, stakeholders from across sectors and interests and always with indigenous rights holders. This is why we established the major projects office, an initiative that acts as a single point of contact to prioritize and help streamline transformative major projects in Canada that, under the Building Canada Act, are intended to strengthen Canada's autonomy, resilience and security; provide economic or other benefits to Canada; have a high likelihood of being successfully executed; advance the interests of indigenous peoples; and contribute to clean growth in meeting Canada's climate change objectives. Through this office, we support proposals that meet the environmental standards Canadians demand, embrace the latest technological innovations and respond to the needs of indigenous peoples, local communities and Canadian businesses.

On that list, as it was announced recently, some needed a nudge, some a big lift, but all will benefit from the help and all needed assistance getting over the finish line. Projects such as LNG Canada phase 2 and pathways plus, in which the “plus” is a pipeline or other type of egress, now under consideration by the office, demonstrate that resolve.

To be built, many projects will require Canadian steel. As mentioned, it is the cleanest, most environmentally friendly steel.

Without any hesitation, I can say today that our government will stand firmly behind Canadian workers and the use of Canadian materials, including Canadian steel, for infrastructure projects that move forward. Our commitment to Canadian steel workers is resolute, as was affirmed by the Prime Minister when he announced new measures to protect and strengthen Canada's steel industry and the communities that rely on it for goods and good, sustainable jobs.

As the Prime Minister announced in July, we will ensure that Canadian steel and other Canadian materials are prioritized in construction. We are also changing federal procurement processes so that companies contracting with the federal government are required to source their steel from Canadian companies. This is more than just economic policy; it is an expression of support for the many families who depend on the steel industry for income and an expression of firm belief in Canada.

This spirit can also be found in the new “build Canada homes” initiative. Through it, the government is executing large-scale procurement from Canadian sources to accelerate the adoption of modern methods of construction. By focusing on Canadian workers and materials for these developments on public lands, “build Canada homes” is helping to fill critical market gaps.

In all of this, our government remains pragmatic and forward-looking. We are driven by the conviction that the future belongs to those who innovate, co-operate and build with purpose. By working together across governments, industries, communities and even, dare I hope, across the aisle, we can and will build Canada strong.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that kind of, sort of answer. There was a lot of word salad there. I heard “build back better” again. As I always say, instead of build back better, I would love it if the Liberals put it back the way they found it.

One question I have for the member across the way is this: We just brought in a new bill for the Major Projects Office to get things fast-tracked, but we could have just repealed Bill C-48 and Bill C-69. I have not heard much conversation on this, but Bill C-69 was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The government has never even talked about that or tried to make Bill C-69 better.

We need to repeal it. Without repealing Bill C-48 and Bill C-69 and getting rid of the industrial carbon tax, it will be virtually impossible to convince proponents to come forward to build these major projects. We heard that from a letter signed by 100 CEOs about how hard it is to find proponents because of that legislation—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Madam Speaker, there is not a major pipeline project in the last 15 years in which I was not involved in some way, shape or form. While these seem like easy, quick solutions, “just make it easier to build things,” what we know in Canadian history is quite different. It actually makes it more difficult and puts these projects at risk. We find all of a sudden that the courts are weighing in and saying that duty was not done. Certainly, with indigenous rights holders, we have seen that happen time and again.

As we wrap up debate, I want to share a quote from my hon. colleague, the Minister of Industry and the Minister responsible for Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions. She said, “Protecting Canada’s steel industry means defending Canadian jobs, securing our economic sovereignty, and building the future right here at home. Canada’s steelworkers are critical to building a strong Canadian economy; protecting their jobs is protecting Canada’s economic future.”

Another way we protect Canada's economic future is through strong regulatory environments that can sustain core challenges and that work with indigenous peoples to make sure that the benefit is broadly shared.

Small Business

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, earlier this spring, I rose in the House to highlight how small businesses are struggling under the weight of red tape, particularly through, at that time, the customs programs at CBSA that were supposed to help businesses but have instead caused confusion, delay and unnecessary costs.

In 2024, the average small business owner lost the equivalent of 32 business days, an entire month of productivity, just dealing with red tape. The cost of regulation across all three levels of government now stands at $51.5 billion. Over one-third of that, almost $18 billion, is wasted on pure red tape. Altogether, businesses spent 768 million hours filling out forms, waiting on approvals and complying with overlapping rules. That is the equivalent of nearly 394,000 full-time jobs tied up in paperwork instead of producing the goods and services Canadians want to see from Canadian businesses.

For example, last week I met with B.C. Food and Beverage and Bimbo Canada, and I heard first-hand how much they are spending on the government's plastics registry alone. Business owners are required to report, every year, on the quantity and types of plastics they produce or use, creating a heavy administrative burden.

It is not just one regulation that makes this difficult; it is the cumulative effect of three levels of government, all demanding time and money from our businesses. This red tape takes time away from running the business, hiring workers and growing our economy. At the same time, our country faces one of the lowest rates of productivity growth in the OECD. Projections show Canada will see the weakest GDP per capita growth among advanced economies in the years ahead.

Now, the solutions are not easy, but this month, the President of the Treasury Board outlined that the Government of Canada would start a red tape review, so in some respects, the government does agree with what I am saying here today.

Tonight, on behalf of the 46.5% of private sector workers in Canada and on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of small businesses, what is the government going to do? What can it signal to Canadians that it is going to do to help businesses, not in a government program but by reducing the overall weight of government on small businesses in our country?

I look forward to the government's response.

[Wade Grant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for this opportunity to inform the House about some of the work carried out each day between the Canada Border Services Agency and commercial importers. A little-known fact is that I was a Canada border agent during the summers when I was young, so I know exactly what they do day in and day out; they ensure the free flow of legitimate trade. That is important because it is part of the agency's mandate.

I want to clarify for the hon. colleague opposite that in order to eliminate time-consuming paper-based processes, the CBSA replaced its aging system for collecting duties and taxes on imported goods. I am of course talking about the Canada Border Services Agency assessment and revenue management system, known as CARM. The CBSA fully launched CARM last October.

When it comes to the release prior to payment program specifically, for years importers complied with regulations by using the financial security of customs brokers. This system did indeed help move goods into our country, but it did not allow the CBSA to properly secure debts owing to the Crown. That was because the agency could not claim against a custom broker's financial security to cover an importer's bad debt, the result of which was significant debt writeoffs.

What do I mean by that? First, let me remind hon. members that each year, the CBSA manages $40 billion in duties and taxes. Before CARM was introduced, the debt writeoff averaged $13 million annually. To address such losses, the CBSA's CARM system now requires importers to post financial security so they can benefit from the release of their imported goods at the border without having to immediately pay duties and taxes.

When implementing CARM last fall, the government included a seven-month transition period to give commercial importers the additional time they needed to post their financial security electronically, while continuing to benefit from the release prior to payment program. That was the transition period that ended on May 20. It was what my hon. colleague was referring to in his question. It was not a surprise move.

The CBSA introduced the first version of the CARM client portal in 2021. The CBSA conducted years of outreach to help importers and other stakeholders familiarize themselves with the new system. The changes for enrolling in the release prior to payment program and its enabling regulations came into force in October 2024. The work on that front continues; that is because helping with the importation of legitimate goods with minimal interruption is an important part of the CBSA's responsibilities, which it takes seriously and does very well. Border wait times for processing commercial shipments remain within service standards.

As of May 2025, over 157,000 businesses have registered on the CARM client portal. Importers who have already posted financial security to obtain release prior to payment represent over 97% of the total volume. In the event of any disruptions at ports of entry, the agency is ready to deploy mitigation strategies to keep legitimate goods flowing across the border without interruption. The CBSA continues to work diligently with importers and others involved in the entry of goods into our country. That includes local stakeholders, including bridge and tunnel operators, airport authorities and trade industry groups.

As I said earlier, outreach efforts with the trade chain partners have been successfully continuing for years. The goal remains to spread awareness about the process for importers to enrol in the release prior to payment program and post financial security before coming to the border.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, while I appreciate the Coles Notes version of CARM, which I think is welcome by many businesses, my question actually was referencing the tariff notices put forward by CBSA.

When we had a government that said we were at economic war with the United States, many small business exporters in the region where we live were looking at the notices put forward. They had great difficulty managing what they had to report to the CBSA for the purposes of tariffs and what actually was covered under the tariff notices with the United States, in conjunction with CUSMA. It was not the current program I was referencing; it was the notices and the bureaucratic headache they have caused for so many businesses that were only trying to do the right thing.

I will pose my initial question again: What is the government going to do? What is it going to signal to small businesses about reducing red tape and the overall administrative burden put on them by the Government of Canada?

[Wade Grant, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to address part of the hon. colleague's question that has to do with border operations. The CBSA actively monitors commercial volumes and wait times. It does this to allocate resources and adjust staffing levels to minimize how long it takes to process goods and to keep unnecessary delays at our ports of entry to a minimum.

These are some of the measures the agency takes. It can adjust and augment staffing levels to manage processing and streamline operations. It can prioritize time-sensitive or perishable goods for release at commercial offices. It can add resources on the CBSA client support help desk to assist importers in using that portal, enrolling in RPP, or posting of financial security.

It also maintains communication with warehouse operators to identify an overflow plan for the storage of unreleased goods. The warehouses play an important role in supporting the continued flow of commercial shipments at the border. Bonded carriers can transport goods to an accredited warehouse. An importer can either post the financial security required so they can benefit from the release prior to payment program or submit a commercial accounting declaration and pay the amounts owing.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:07 p.m.)