House of Commons Hansard #146 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was project.

Topics

line drawing of robot

This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.

Petitions

Opposition Motion—Diesel Prices Members debate a Conservative motion for emergency diesel tax relief, faster approvals for fuel infrastructure, and a goal of producing one million barrels of diesel daily. Conservatives argue high fuel costs burden farmers, truckers and consumers, while greater domestic production would improve affordability and energy security. Liberals cite existing temporary tax relief and long-term infrastructure plans, cautioning that global markets shape prices and refineries cannot provide immediate relief. Bloc members favour targeted assistance and question whether broad tax cuts benefit consumers or oil companies. 50600 words, 6 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.

Statements by Members

Question Period

The Conservatives attack the government’s “Buy Canadian” pledge, citing increased U.S. procurement and contracts that they say cost Canadian jobs. They call for diesel tax relief to ease farm and household costs, and criticize alleged waste and poor oversight at the CRA, PrescribeIT, and entrepreneurship programs. They also oppose cuts to seed research.
The Liberals defend their Buy Canadian policy, arguing that procurement and foreign investment support Canadian jobs. They promote major energy projects and faster project approvals, while touting affordability measures, including grocery benefits and fuel-tax relief. They also highlight defence procurement reform, support for women entrepreneurs, and efforts to address seniors’ benefit backlogs.
The Bloc condemns Bill C-39 as an abuse of authority, arguing it lets favoured pipeline projects bypass environmental reviews and consultations. It also criticizes the government’s handling of delayed seniors’ benefits and raises concerns about noise affecting interpreters.
The NDP challenge the pipeline fast-track over Indigenous consent and rights and demand action against foreign interference in democracy.
The Greens object to heckling and interruptions during Question Period, urging members to let speakers finish.

Alleged Premature Disclosure of Information Concerning Bill C-39 Members debate whether government briefings on a west coast pipeline update and Bill C-39 raise a question of privilege, with the government arguing established precedents show MPs were not obstructed in their duties. 800 words.

Youth Criminal Justice Act Report stage of Bill C-231. The bill amends the Youth Criminal Justice Act to let authorities refer young people facing criminal proceedings to treatment, and allow courts in some cases to defer sentencing or make treatment a condition of an order. Its scope includes problematic substance use and other treatment, such as mental health programs, to support rehabilitation and reintegration. 7900 words, 1 hour.

Building Canada Strong Act Second reading of Bill C-39. The bill proposes to coordinate and accelerate major-project reviews, strengthen trade corridors and ports, digitize trade processes, and amend federal labour rules. Supporters say it can reduce duplication and attract investment while maintaining safeguards; critics question the one-year timeline, expanded cabinet discretion and exemptions for regions of national interest, and warn of risks to environmental protections, Indigenous rights, workers’ strike rights and parliamentary scrutiny. 44000 words, 5 hours.

Alleged Premature Disclosure of Bill C-40 Andrew Scheer alleges that media reports disclose specific provisions of Bill C-40 before its introduction, breaching members’ parliamentary privileges, and asks the Speaker to find a prima facie contempt of the House. 1200 words.

Adjournment Debates

Diesel fuel prices Arnold Viersen says high diesel prices are hurting workers and argues Liberal taxes and policies are deterring Canadian fuel production. He urges the government to adopt the Conservatives’ fuel plan and remove the clean fuel standard. Claude Guay cites temporary excise-tax relief and other affordability measures, blaming global instability for supply pressures.
Military housing costs Cheryl Gallant criticizes the government for reducing Canadian Armed Forces housing benefits and raising shelter charges, while alleging broader defence delays and waste. Claude Guay says overall benefits have risen 20%, explains that housing differentials target high-cost markets, and notes that shelter-charge increases are capped and limited to 25% of household income.
Was this summary helpful and accurate?

Opposition Motion—Diesel PricesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Conservative

David Bexte Conservative Bow River, AB

Mr. Speaker, I would have to say there is no such thing as a measured way with unreasonable policies. We get them out of the way. If they are bad policies, we put in good policies.

Whether the Prime Minister has spent some of his life in Alberta or not, I do not think there is a direct connection between that and the understanding of what the lives of a common person and a common family on a limited budget are like today, with the costs increasing day after day.

Limited tax relief is not the answer. Full tax relief is the answer.

Opposition Motion—Diesel PricesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Conservative

Tamara Kronis Conservative Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

Mr. Speaker, the last question highlighted the difference between the Conservatives' approach to this issue and the Liberals' approach to this issue. They are talking about “measured”, and we are talking about making a substantial difference in Canadians' lives by removing the entirety of everything the government can control in terms of the price of diesel.

The member talked about the most expensive harvest he has ever seen. I am wondering if he could talk about the impact of that on our food prices at the grocery store in the rest of Canada.

Opposition Motion—Diesel PricesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Conservative

David Bexte Conservative Bow River, AB

Mr. Speaker, my esteemed colleague always has a great perspective on the world.

The cost cannot be underestimated, and it is so easy to do, because it comes in what seems like small bits, but collectively and adding it up, it compounds into a massive impact on the budget of families and farmers. It is thousands and thousands of dollars in a year coming out of a budget and going to taxes. Thousands and thousands of dollars go into the system for compounding taxes that are seen at every step of the supply chain.

That money does not contribute to a good economy. It is not additive. It is a burden on our society, it is a burden on the people and it just makes life more expensive.

Opposition Motion—Diesel PricesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member can then provide clarification. Based on that question and his answer, is the Conservative Party of Canada's position that there should be no form of taxation on diesel or gasoline?

Opposition Motion—Diesel PricesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Conservative

David Bexte Conservative Bow River, AB

Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting question from the member across the way.

Should there be no taxation? In an ideal world, there would be none at all. There would be no income tax, no sales tax, no excise tax and no GST. However, we do not live in a world like that. It is not ideal yet, and it may never be, but taxes should be cut to the absolute minimum possible with the smallest possible government to deliver the minimum viable product. A small government means small taxes.

Opposition Motion—Diesel PricesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Conservative

Carol Anstey Conservative Long Range Mountains, NL

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could articulate the direct, but also the indirect, costs to farmers of diesel and what that means to their farms. I know he knows the space very well.

Opposition Motion—Diesel PricesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Conservative

David Bexte Conservative Bow River, AB

Mr. Speaker, it is about where I come from and what I live. The day-to-day experience of farmers is that every bill is more, and it is more by thousands of dollars, whether it is for the trucker delivering fertilizer, the fertilizer itself, the seed or the feed. It is all of it. Everything is more, and it is thousands of dollars per day, per month and per year.

I cannot overestimate how much money gets consumed in taxes.

Opposition Motion—Diesel PricesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

LaSalle—Émard—Verdun Québec

Liberal

Claude Guay LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. Speaker, we all know that Canada cannot take energy security for granted. In recent years, global conflicts have caused major disruptions to the world's energy supply. Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the war in Iran have both had a significant impact on international energy markets. Events thousands of kilometres away drive up global fuel prices, which increases costs here in Canada.

Gas and diesel are part of everyday life for millions of Canadians. Whether we commute to work, drive kids to school, go shopping, visit family, run businesses or operate farm equipment, transportation is integral to everyday life and essential to the Canadian economy. Rising gas and diesel prices have a direct impact on Canadians and put significant financial pressure on families.

Canadians deserve to have a serious debate in the House of Commons on the causes of these rising costs and the solutions that will make a real impact. With their proposal, the Conservatives would have us believe that because Canada has oil sands reserves, all we need to do is stick a pipe in and diesel will come out the other end, and that is how we would solve the problem.

Although we do have large reserves of bitumen, it needs to be processed before it can be extracted. It then has to be refined and transported. The situation in eastern Canada is different from the situation in western Canada. All of that means that there is no easy solution. At the end of the day, though, this issue raises two far simpler questions: One, how can we bring down costs for Canadians today? Two, how can we make Canada less vulnerable to future disruptions?

I attended a meeting of the European Union's energy ministers in Ireland. One of the major issues on the table was, of course, diesel supplies. The EU is dealing with high costs, but it is much more concerned about supply. All that to say, the government believes that Canadians need both: a reduction in current costs and greater energy security for the future. A responsible energy strategy requires both immediate action and long-term planning. They go hand in hand, unlike what we are seeing in the Conservatives' motion.

That is exactly the approach that our government is taking. Supporting Canadians at this time of high gas and diesel prices is a priority for our government. That is why we have taken action.

To respond to these rising fuel prices, we reduced federal taxes on fuel by 28¢ a litre by suspending the federal tax on diesel and gas. More recently, we introduced a bill to extend that support until January 31, 2027, and then to partially reduce the tax until the end of March. These tax cuts will hep Canadians save at the pump. Of course, this support will not resolve all of the challenges facing global energy markets, since foreign conflicts continue to disrupt supply. However, it will provide real support to Canadians while we are working at the international level to resolve this problem.

Last Friday, G7 leaders met to discuss the impact that the high price of diesel was having on their respective countries, including Canada. To address this problem, the G7 leaders agreed to coordinate the release of 100 million barrels of oil and diesel to respond to the pressures affecting global energy markets.

Canada's contribution to this effort involves increasing private sector production and making 23.6 million barrels of Canadian crude oil available to global markets. I would also remind the House that this crude oil needs to be processed into diesel. Canada is also contributing to this effort by producing more diesel and other products at its own refineries. In fact, in April 2026, Canada's diesel production increased by 16.3% over the previous year, reaching nearly 730,000 barrels per day, the highest level of production ever recorded in our country. It is important to mention that.

Furthermore, during the same period, Canadian diesel exports rose by 64.7%. These measures have already paid off. The national price of diesel has fallen by more than four cents per litre since October 2. That said, more needs to be done to bring down the cost of living for Canadians, and our government is currently taking steps to ease this burden.

While working to reduce the price of gas and diesel for Canadians, we are implementing various measures to leave more money in the pockets of Canadian families. For a family of four, the Canada groceries and essentials benefit will amount to nearly $1,900. That same family will receive the Canada child benefit, which will provide them with $7,000.

Thanks to our personal income tax cut, this family will also save a further $840 this year, plus an additional $800 through Canada's national school food program. Furthermore, this family could save up to $16,000 a year thanks to our government's affordable child care program, as well as $730 a year through the Canadian dental care plan. These are all measures that the opposition, led by our Conservative friends, voted against.

Affordability is central to our government's work, and we are always going to strive to help families cope with the cost of living, including by lowering the price of diesel and gas.

Along with measures to support Canadians, our government is taking steps to strengthen the energy security of Canada and its allies in order to improve our resilience to global energy supply disruptions. This means ensuring that our fuel transportation and storage infrastructure is up to the task and that our supply chains are reliable and resilient. Achieving this will require a regulatory framework that allows major projects to move forward with greater certainty and efficiency.

Canadians have been clear: They want projects to happen faster. Opposition members are calling for the same thing. Investors want more certainty. Workers want to progress from the design phase to construction. That is why our government created the Major Projects Office, to clear the way for these major projects and fast-track decisions, because attracting investment depends not only on what Canada has, but also on its ability to get projects off the ground.

Since the creation of the Major Projects Office, more than 15 projects in the energy, natural resources, and infrastructure sectors have benefited from streamlined processes, representing $126 billion in investment in our economy and the creation of more than 60,000 well-paying jobs.

The need for that work has only become clearer as the world has changed. Countries around the world are rethinking supply chains. Markets are becoming less predictable. Allies are looking more closely at the resources and infrastructure that underpin their economy, and Canada must do the same.

Energy security is essential to keeping energy and everyday living affordable in Canada. Reliable energy supplies can protect Canadians from sudden price shocks and can support businesses. Our energy future must focus on reliability, diversification, infrastructure investment and responsible development of our energy resources. By maintaining a secure and affordable energy system, we can strengthen our economy while improving the financial well-being of all Canadians. That is precisely why the government has made nation-building infrastructure a priority.

Just last week, the Government of Canada designated the Pacific link as a project of national interest under the Building Canada Act. The project has the potential to move approximately one million additional barrels per day of Canadian oil to international markets and further diversify Canada's export opportunities beyond a single customer. That decision reflects a simple reality: Canada needs more options, Canada needs more customers and Canada needs infrastructure capable of connecting our resources with both Canadian and international markets.

The question today is not whether Canada should build major energy projects. The answer to that is a clear yes, and more importantly, the government is taking concrete steps to get them built.

The Pacific link advanced not because someone announced a target. It advanced because government, industry and partners came together to begin the work of turning an idea into a project. That is how things get built: not through wish lists but through planning, investment, consultation, engineering, construction and execution, which are all things that are lacking in the motion before us today.

A major pipeline will strengthen the long-term energy security of both Canada and our allies. On that note, let me add that the Trans Mountain Corporation is advancing optimization projects that would increase TMX capacity by about 360,000 barrels of oil per day. These projects will support Canada's diversification efforts, increase our resilience and strengthen energy security globally.

Energy security, however, also includes a range of energy types and projects. In September 2025, following the successful opening of LNG Canada phase one, our government referred LNG Canada phase two to the Major Projects Office. In September 2025, LNG Canada phase two expanded LNG Canada's facility to double production from the current 14 million tonnes per year to a total of 28 million tonnes per year. This project will deliver low-carbon-intensity Canadian energy to the global market, helping diversify Canada's trading partners, particularly in Asia and Europe.

Just last week, the private sector proponents of this project announced a final investment decision: Major Projects Office referral, September 2025. Last week, there was a final investment decision, which actually brings $33 billion of investment into our country and strengthens the energy security of Canada and its allies. Thanks to this investment, thousands of jobs will be created as part of this project across the country, supporting our workers and our economy.

In November 2025, our government referred the Ksi Lisims LNG project to the Major Projects Office. It is a proposed floating natural gas liquefaction, production, storage and offloading facility with a marine terminal located on the north coast of British Columbia. This project represents a $30-billion investment into Canada, and once built would operate as one of the most low-carbon facilities of this kind in the world. Since then, in May and June 2026, Ksi Lisims signed supply agreements with German purchasers for millions of tonnes per year of LNG supply. One of the purchasers, the Uniper utility, said, “Canada helps diversify Europe's energy supply and strengthens resilience against future disruptions.”

Further, the approval of the natural gas Sunrise expansion project, in partnership with 38 first nations, is also key to our objective of strengthening Canada's energy security. It will add $3.3 billion to Canada's economy annually and generate over $700 million in tax revenue, which we use for roads, hospitals and schools in B.C. At peak construction, it will create over 2,500 jobs to support Canadian communities. This approval, which was done in under two years, is part of our work to make Canada a clean and conventional energy superpower.

In August of this year, our government announced, alongside the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador, the largest clean energy investment in North American history, at nearly $70 billion, to generate 14,000 megawatts of renewable power through the Churchill Falls and Gull Island hydroelectricity projects. The energy generated from these projects will be enough to power all the homes in Montreal, Vancouver and Toronto combined, while supporting 23,000 jobs and contributing $31 billion to Canada's GDP.

These investments are about ensuring Canada is better prepared for future disruption. We are now expanding our approach by streamlining the review of all projects in Canada. Our government made more progress than any other in history by signing one project, one review agreements with provinces to reduce duplication between federal and provincial permitting processes.

We are now implementing one project, one review, one year through the building Canada strong act, Bill C-39. This bill, currently before the House of Commons, would strengthen our project review system by providing all required permits, not less, within a single year. This improvement would significantly quicken our permitting system, which has for too long been seen as discouraging investment in Canada.

These improvements would be made while maintaining strong environmental standards and a robust consultation process with indigenous people, in full respect of indigenous people's constitutional rights. Our government will always strive to build partnerships with first nations, Métis and Inuit, which is why one of our first acts in office was to double the indigenous loan guarantee program and support indigenous equity in major projects. Our government is pursuing both tracks at the same time: affordability measures for Canadians today and infrastructure that strengthens Canada's resilience tomorrow. Now, that is a plan.

Our government has been focused on both objectives in the extension of the federal fuel tax relief and by advancing the infrastructure that will strengthen Canada's energy security over the long term. The challenges facing Canadians are happening now, and that is why the government acted when fuel prices began rising earlier this year. Canadians are asking for results. We all agree on that. They want relief from high costs. They want reliable fuel support. They want confidence that Canada will be better prepared when the next disruption comes, and it will.

The government is acting on both fronts. It has delivered fuel tax relief and is working to strengthen domestic supply chains. It is advancing infrastructure that will make Canada more resilient in the years ahead. We can make diesel more affordable. We can make Canada more secure. We can do both without pretending that Canada alone controls the global price of diesel. This is the practical approach Canadians expect.

Opposition Motion—Diesel PricesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Conservative

Anna Roberts Conservative King—Vaughan, ON

Mr. Speaker, we went from a swampland to the salad bowl of Canada. We have over 125 farmers in the Holland Marsh. They farm 7,000 acres. At Eek Farms, they are commercial third-generation farmers. They are feeling the impact of the diesel prices.

Can my hon. colleague please explain to the farmers of my community how this will impact their growing season?

Opposition Motion—Diesel PricesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Liberal

Claude Guay Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC

Mr. Speaker, of course, we recognize that diesel prices are affecting farmers across the country and around the world. Unfortunately, that is the reality that has been caused by geopolitical developments.

I mentioned my trip to Ireland with the European energy ministers from countries where agriculture accounts for as large a share of their gross domestic product as it does in Canada. They, too, must contend not only with costs but also with supply—

Opposition Motion—Diesel PricesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater

We will now resume questions and comments.

The hon. member for Québec Centre has the floor.

Opposition Motion—Diesel PricesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Liberal

Jean-Yves Duclos Liberal Québec Centre, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for providing a compelling overview of the many measures the Canadian government is implementing to support families, particularly middle-class families and those who need it most.

I would like to invite my relatively new colleague, who is already doing a great job in the House and in his riding, to tell us which of these measures he believes are most important to the people in his riding.

Opposition Motion—Diesel PricesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

October 6th, 2026 / 11 a.m.

Liberal

Claude Guay Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that great question, which really highlights our government's ambitions.

The price of diesel is indeed a challenge across Canada, but the most important issue remains affordability. Diesel costs are exacerbating unaffordability. In my riding, the number one thing I hear about is affordability. That is why I would say to my colleague that the most important measures are all the affordability measures that our government has put in place, particularly the grocery benefit and all the family supports.

Thousands of children in my riding are benefiting from the national school food program. As everyone knows, Quebec led the way on low-cost child care, and that program has been expanded across the country. Our support for child care has had a significant impact.

Opposition Motion—Diesel PricesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the parliamentary secretary is aware that when he refers to the new pipeline, now rebranded as Pacific link, and says it is moving Canadian oil, that it is not actually moving Canadian oil. The project description from the Government of Alberta correctly describes the project as moving diluted bitumen. “Canadian oil” suggests it might be crude that could go straight to a refinery, which this cannot. It is a more hazardous project, being diluted bitumen.

Does the government not think it is important to correctly describe a project that it thinks is in the national interest?

Opposition Motion—Diesel PricesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

Claude Guay Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC

Mr. Speaker, we will take that into consideration. I believe my colleague's facts are accurate regarding what flows through the pipeline, and I would be happy to discuss that with her.

Opposition Motion—Diesel PricesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

Tamara Kronis Conservative Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

Mr. Speaker, the government says that the pressures on diesel prices are the result of global factors that will not go away quickly. The member talks about relief, but the relief he is proposing is temporary. That will only prolong the uncertainty that our supply chains and businesses are facing as they make investment decisions.

Why not support our motion and give Canadians more lasting relief by eliminating all federal taxes on diesel until July 2027?

Opposition Motion—Diesel PricesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

Claude Guay Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC

Mr. Speaker, when we look at this motion in isolation, we lose sight of all the long-term affordability measures the government has introduced since taking office. Of course, as we have always done, we will need to continue monitoring developments with respect to diesel over the coming year.

I believe that, at this time, we are providing a reasonable period of predictability. When it comes to investment and predictability, that is precisely what Bill C‑39 intends to provide. Through this measure and its one-year review standard, we are seeking to give industry the certainty it needs to make investments.

Opposition Motion—Diesel PricesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments on the opposition day motion, and my question is related to both the short term and the long term. He made reference to the issue of affordability, which is something the government takes very seriously. The Prime Minister has talked about it virtually since the last federal election, and this is a major aspect of it. Also, we have to think in terms of the long term.

My colleague referred to a number of investments and potential projects, with some that are actually being developed today. I wonder if he could provide his thoughts as to why it is really important that we look at both sides, the importance of affordability along with the expansion of our markets.

Opposition Motion—Diesel PricesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

Claude Guay Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC

Mr. Speaker, that is a very important question. That is exactly why the government is taking both short- and long-term measures.

The short-term measures are all the affordability measures we have introduced. The gas and diesel tax cut is also a short-term measure, a short-term strategy.

Regarding the long-term strategy, I would say that opening up our oil and gas exports to other countries will get us a price that is much closer to market value. Right now, we depend on a single customer, so Canadian exports are sold at a discount. That is because we have only one customer, only one country buying our oil.

Opposition Motion—Diesel PricesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon South, SK

Mr. Speaker, I like our opposition day motion today because our motion is pretty simple. We have to cut diesel taxes and produce more fuel in this country.

I heard a farmer from Weyburn, Saskatchewan, on the radio last week who said there has been a 100% increase in diesel prices year to year, and a 25% increase in diesel prices from August to now. This will come to consumers sooner or later.

Why would the government not support our motion today? It would trickle down to the consumers.

Opposition Motion—Diesel PricesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

Claude Guay Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC

Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons why it is difficult to support this motion is because it fails to include many factors. It does not take into account the fact that our oil industry is integrated with that of the United States. Canada and the United States have refineries that produce different types of products, like diesel, of course, using both light crude and heavy crude oils.

Since our country as a whole is integrated with the United States, we cannot simply say that we are just going to lower prices. We depend on existing international markets and supply chains. We therefore need to provide some relief. We need to have measures to improve the financial situation. We need to do so in the short term, while we build for the long term.

Opposition Motion—Diesel PricesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

Bloc

Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC

Mr. Speaker, I extend my regards to all of my colleagues. Before I begin, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Jonquière—Hébertville—Pays-des-Bleuets, a riding with a very lovely name, by the way. We are very pleased with it. The name-change process took some time, but the effort was well worth it.

I would like to take a moment to say that a provincial election was held in Quebec yesterday. Quebeckers elected a new government, a Parti Québécois government. I wanted to use my time in the House to congratulate Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, his team, and the Parti Québécois, and to tell them that we are proud of them. I would especially like to congratulate my colleagues from the Laurentians, colleagues from my riding: Geneviève, from Mirabel; Dieudonné, from Les Plaines; Pierre Nantel, from Argenteuil; and Audrey Bujold, a mother of four, from Bellefeuille. I want to offer them my congratulations. It will be a real pleasure to work with them.

In an election like this, many people lose and leave their seats. On election nights, we see a lot of the candidates and MNAs. I just want to take a minute to recognize not only all of the candidates and all of the members who are leaving the Quebec National Assembly, but also their teams, the people who work with them but whom we did not see last night. Regardless of party affiliation, these people, like the ones in my own riding, help constituents with issues related to health care, day care and school. They serve the public. Today, they are facing a major personal transition. I want to recognize the commitment of all those who work in an elected official's office. Everyone here has a team. Even if those people were not in front of the cameras yesterday, I want to tell them that, everything else aside, we are thinking of them. Our teams are important and deserve our recognition.

I also wanted to say that people in the Laurentians are making it clear how they feel about about Alto high-speed train. More than 60% of voters in Mirabel voted against the high-speed train. If you look at the map along the route, with the exception of two places where there are stations, the vote is clear. It is clear in Papineau. It is clear in Argenteuil. It is clear throughout the Laurentians. It is clear in Lanaudière. It is clear in Mauricie. It is even clear in Trois-Rivières. It is clear in the Quebec City region.

This project is a mistake. Quebeckers made that clear yesterday. The government needs to reconsider this project, particularly given that Alto's methods, business practices, lack of transparency and the way it pays out bonuses are contrary to all our democratic ideals and to all the ideals we hold about good business practice for a project like this. The fact that the people at Alto are being driven by Bill C-15, a law that also contradicts our democratic ideals and violates people's rights, should also give us pause. We know that expropriations are on the horizon. We know that Alto is already laying the groundwork. We know that Alto's relationship with the truth is murky, to put it very politely. It is clear that today, the government must acknowledge that Quebeckers said no to this project last night.

Now, let us get back to the Conservative motion. I thank my colleagues for proposing it. It should come as no surprise. The Conservatives are in favour of removing all taxes, although which ones depend on the day and the subject. Today, we are talking about diesel.

This motion is full of shortcuts and statements that are not backed up by facts. However, there is a reality behind it. Diesel is a key input in the transportation of goods. It is a key input for the cost of the food we eat, for taxi drivers and for people in construction. It is a key input whose price has increased considerably. I would simply like to remind the House that the Bloc Québécois has repeatedly asked, during a crisis, for special relief measures to be offered to businesses and individuals who use diesel as an input.

We are talking about targeted measures, and that is exactly what we are discussing today: We have to acknowledge that the increased cost of diesel is significantly affecting supply chains, yet at the same time, we need to be fiscally responsible. We cannot vote every tax like this into oblivion every time a problem crops up, without conducting any studies, without any facts and without first doing our job. I think the Conservatives should follow our example and adopt the Bloc Québécois's approach. I think there is a way to target measures more effectively and be fiscally responsible while still reducing supply chain costs. That is the challenge I am putting to the Conservatives today. Clearly, the Bloc Québécois would have a hard time supporting this motion as it stands.

Once again, I am calling for facts and studies, for details about the impact of these taxes and the effect on government revenues of measures like this motion by the Conservatives, or the excise tax suspension introduced by the government.

We are members of the opposition. Our job is to legislate, to look at motions and bills and ask ourselves the following questions. Is the money being redistributed to the right people? Is it making life more affordable for the right people? How is it affecting taxpayers? Is it a gift to the oil companies? Often, the answer is yes, or unknown, because the Minister of Financeis not giving us information.

Yesterday, there was a committee meeting on the excise tax. I asked the Minister of Finance a factual question, and his answer shows that we are not off to a good start. I asked the minister whether the department had conducted any studies on the excise tax rebate of 10¢ on gas and four cents on diesel, for example, to see what proportion is actually going into taxpayers' or consumers' pockets and assess whether this measure is actually working. Are we talking about 90%, 85% or 75%? Did the department do its job?

The minister told me that 100% of the excise tax rebate is going into people's pockets, that there is no need to conduct studies, that this is an easy calculation and that the answer is obvious. People at home can figure it out on a napkin. That is basically what the minister told me.

The member for Québec Centre is right in front of me. He taught the impact of taxation at the university level. He understands the importance of doing the math. That does not necessarily mean we are against it. It means we are being asked to vote for bills without knowing the impact they will have. Is the money being redistributed to the right people? Is it regressive?

The minister showed up at the committee meeting with an infographic, with cartoon-style speech bubbles, and told us he had an infographic. He is the Minister of Finance and likes to remind everyone that he is in the G7. The finance minister of a G7 country shows up in committee with an infographic, without any studies.

The excise tax has been suspended in Australia. Researchers at the University of Melbourne concluded that due to a lack of competition, among other factors, it has effectively become an oil subsidy, that a significant portion of the tax was stuck in the distribution network and that the money was not all ending up in people's pockets. Some might say that Australia is so far away. In the U.S., it has been suspended in several states. As it turns out, nearly a quarter of the tax cut ended up in the pockets of oil companies.

During the Senate Committee of the Whole, Senator Gignac put the question to the minister, but the minister refused to answer. The same thing is happening in the debate on today's motion. The Conservatives wants to suspend all taxes, claiming that it will help Canadians, but without considering competition issues or the fact that oil companies are going to fill their own pockets. If they want to subsidize oil companies, they should say so, they should tell us that that is part of it.

As a member of Parliament, my job is to think about the 20% or 25% of people earning the lowest incomes, people who have seen no increase in their real purchasing power for years, whose wages are lagging behind, who have to use their vehicles to get to work or engage in construction or agricultural activities. My job is to ask myself whether these are the people who will benefit directly from the measures proposed today.

We are talking about permanent measures. The minister told us yesterday that his excise tax measure is targeted, but that it affects everyone. We therefore had to ask whether it was targeted or whether it affected everyone, and if he had any definitions in that regard. There were no definitions. The minister says that this is temporary, yet there is nothing more permanent than a temporary tax cut. History has taught us that. These tax cuts become permanent. Yes, I quoted Milton Friedman. Imagine that.

One witness told us that the crisis in the Strait of Hormuz will continue to affect the supply chain long after the crisis ends. We cannot keep cutting taxes without knowing what impact it will have, especially since, and I will say this again to the Conservatives, the federal government's budget situation is troubling. There is no plan to balance the budget. Several fiscal anchors have been abandoned. The government is not being rigorous. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has said that the definitions for what constitutes capital investment are inconsistent. Yesterday, the minister could not even tell me whether an excise tax cut is a capital investment.

When the Conservatives move a motion like the one before us today, I want to know how it will affect the public purse. We cannot keep cutting taxes left and right and then expect the budget to balance itself. It is not like an apple that falls from the tree. Gravity will not simply take care of that. I urge the Conservatives to be more thorough and to give us the facts. I also want to let the government know that it has to give us the tools we need to do our parliamentary work.

Opposition Motion—Diesel PricesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

Marilyn Gladu Liberal Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON

Mr. Speaker, the member gave a good speech. He is always very intelligent. As for the tax cut, it is hard to know what is going to happen in Iran with this crisis. We need to be responsible. We can cut taxes and continue to assess the situation.

Does my colleague not agree that this is a responsible action?

Opposition Motion—Diesel PricesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

Bloc

Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC

Mr. Speaker, before the events involving the Strait of Hormuz, there was the war in Ukraine. Fertilizer supplies and the fuel market were affected. As for the government's position, there is a different prime minister now, and, with all due respect to my colleague, it is hard to tell who is who.

What I am saying is that the Bloc Québécois has put forward proposals. We recognize that the supply chain depends on diesel. That is true in agriculture, it is true for taxi drivers and it is true for paratransit. We put forward measures that were targeted, costed, budgeted and responsible, but the government has not acted on them yet.

Opposition Motion—Diesel PricesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to talk about the election, thank those who have left and congratulate the winners, but I want to start by talking about something I noticed in my colleague's speech. He said something that struck me.

We saw the former Quebec government doing the Liberal Party's bidding when it came to Alto. Everyone who was part of that government is now gone. On the other hand, those who were against Alto, namely the Parti Québécois and the Conservative Party of Quebec, have made huge gains. One has formed the government, and the other has risen from the ashes and elected 19 members to the National Assembly.

If the government still intends to push ahead with the Alto project, I think it will need support in Quebec. I do not know where it will find it, but pushing ahead and expropriating Quebec land through the Crown—what message does that send to a party hoping for sovereignty?