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.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
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.
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.
Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Mr. Speaker, the Major Projects Office, headquartered in Calgary, in my colleague's province, is currently studying more than 20 projects representing $500 billion in investments. Even the premier of his province said that she was optimistic about the Major Projects Office.
I would like to ask my colleague whether he shares his provincial premier's optimism about the Major Projects Office.
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Mr. Speaker, “The feels are good” is generally the message from the Liberal Party, that it has a lot of good feelings and a lot of goodwill. The fact of the matter is that the Major Projects Office has failed to approve one single new project.
Michael Ma Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act, puts forward important legislative changes that would build on the government's effort to protect Canada's economic future by reducing the regulatory burden faced by the Canadian transportation sector.
Last year, the government passed the Building Canada Act, which focused on accelerating the development of projects of national interest and removing barriers to internal trade and labour mobility. Today I am pleased to tell members that we have worked diligently in the last months on timely project reviews, streamlining government processes, ensuring that safeguards are in place when expediting project reviews, and reducing costs to Canadians and businesses.
We all know that the global post-Cold War consensus has ruptured. For much of our history, Canadians have been able to count on favourable trade conditions, including a stable relationship with the United States; increasingly open access to the American market; and rules that both countries understood and respected. These conditions have not simply shifted. The decades-long process of steadily increasing integration between our economies is over. Tariffs are being treated as leverage, and supply chains are being treated as vulnerabilities.
In a rapidly changing world, Canada's new government is focused on what we can control. We are building our strength at home and diversifying our partnerships abroad. We have the right plan to build Canada strong. We are on track, and it is working.
Transportation is the vital link connecting every other priority we have. We cannot diversify trade, build the strongest economy in the G7 and strengthen Canada's competitiveness without a transportation system that works. Canada's trade corridors connect Canadian businesses to markets and supply chains at home and around the world. We heard directly from indigenous peoples, the transportation industry and Canadians about what is needed to build stronger, more efficient and more resilient supply chains. We are taking action to reduce red tape, strengthen supply chains, accelerate infrastructure development and attract the investment needed to grow Canada's economy and create good jobs.
For too long, we have let red tape and underinvestment hinder the innovation and productivity of Canadian companies. We are not modern enough. We are too bureaucratic. We have not invested enough in our infrastructure. Other countries find us unreliable. These are things that we urgently have to address. That is why we would be providing regulatory certainty to modernize the rules that govern how we build and putting real investment behind the infrastructure we need to compete in this new world while protecting the health, safety and security of Canadians and the environment, and respecting indigenous rights.
To support the government's commitment to lower costs for Canadians and build a stronger economy, the government launched a red tape review in July 2025. Federal departments and agencies identified approximately 500 recent achievements and forward-looking actions to reduce regulatory red tape. This bill would begin the implementation of some of these forward-looking actions, showing how the government would deliver on its commitment to address barriers that slow private investment, limit labour mobility and restrict competition.
Canada needs to be seen as a reliable and beneficial place to invest and do business. Inefficiencies in our trade processes and supply chains are costly and can hurt our reputation as a reliable trading partner. To maximize the full value of our budget 2025 investments, we must address long-standing constraints in the transportation system that limit investment, productivity, diversification and growth in key trade-enabling assets. The bill would support a more modern, responsive transportation system that can handle economic pressures, improve transportation performance and unlock new capacity across supply chains.
A critical piece of this bill addresses the urgent need for timely and coordinated project reviews. Securing approvals for project works can take months or even years, creating significant delays in project delivery and limiting opportunities for job creation. These delays deter investment in resource projects, including in mining and oil and gas.
This bill includes measures to reduce red tape and regulatory burden through a new transportation project office, which would complement efforts being led by the Major Projects Office and the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada to strengthen federal permitting coordination and Crown consultation for transportation projects to meet the government's commitment of one project, one review within one year of receiving all necessary information from the proponent. These changes would enable industry to advance large-scale projects more efficiently with greater certainty, helping attract investment and facilitate trade-enabling infrastructure. The transportation project office would work to reduce bottlenecks, improve coordination and offer a one-window approach to proponents. This improved approach would maintain existing safeguards that ensure the integrity of project reviews. The objective is to unlock greater efficiency, not more risk.
Similarly, the government is committed to having indigenous views and partnerships shape how projects are developed and carried out. We remain committed to upholding indigenous rights, including rights stemming from section 35 of the Constitution and from the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and to working with indigenous peoples during the implementation phase. The bill would also give Canada the tools to rapidly align with trusted international standards, strengthen how we collect, use and protect industry data, and modernize our marine security framework to better protect critical Canadian assets.
Following the “tell us once” principle, government efforts on trade digitization will make it simpler for Canadian businesses to submit the necessary information to move trade faster and more efficiently across our borders. I want to especially highlight that last point. Today, industries fulfilling regulatory requirements are routinely required to submit the same or similar data to multiple departments in various formats and on different timelines. This imposes real costs and administrative burdens on businesses in meeting their regulatory obligations when engaging in international trade. Canadian businesses expect clear communication, faster turnaround times and the ability to track the status of their requests. By reducing duplication and streamlining reporting, a trade digitization initiative, once implemented, will lower costs and save time, ease the overall administration burden and let businesses focus primarily on growth and innovation.
The bill would also provide authorities to enable Canada to rapidly align with trusted international standards, giving industry the certainty it needs to plan and invest with confidence, especially as Canada seeks to grow. With our rules and regulations moving at the same pace as those of our international partners, Canadian innovation and productivity would be unleashed, and Canadian companies could compete on a level playing field with their international competitors.
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
Mr. Speaker, the member talked in his speech directly about timely and coordinated reviews. He talked extensively about this applying to the transportation components of Bill C-39. He also conflated those same provisions with one year, one review. However, in Bill C-39, there is no statutory deadline for transportation projects in part 1. Part 2 contains none of that as well. He also talked about the transportation project office as being a fundamental part of the bill.
Maybe the member can say, first of all, why the government did not put in a statutory timeline. Second, why is the Minister of Transport given the discretionary power to create the transportation project office? It is not even mandatory under the law. Lastly, it would have zero approval authority.
What is going on? Why is the member conflating transportation projects being done on time when there is nothing in the bill that would do that?
Michael Ma Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
Mr. Speaker, as I said in the speech, transportation projects are critical for our supply chain in Canada, in our trade with international partners. The transportation project office is intended to be the lead coordinator for transportation projects not already coordinated by IAAC, CER, CNSC or the Building Canada Act processes. These are all separate streams. Another bureaucracy would have bundled them all together, but we have chosen that the transportation project office would focus specifically on the transportation programs.
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-39, and particularly division 6 on the Species at Risk Act, adds the concept of the feasibility of the terms and conditions in respect of permits for activities that affect habitat and species. The government is weakening the conditions imposed when an activity is authorized by the government, despite the fact that it will have a negative impact on a listed species and its habitat.
Is the member not concerned that endangered species could end up further threatened?
Michael Ma Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government certainly respects endangered species. In these processes and reviews, those would be taken into consideration to make sure that we protect endangered animals as well as follow international rules.
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Ontario is a seasoned businessman. He is well aware of the importance of getting quick answers when a final decision needs to be made by a group of investors for a project.
I would like to know whether he believes that Canada can afford to take a long time before reaching a decision. Should we not instead, in the current context, try to make comprehensive and swift decisions?
Michael Ma Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
Mr. Speaker, that is a wonderful question. As my colleague mentioned, from a business perspective, and as I mentioned in my speech, speed and efficiency are critical for Canadian businesses to compete in this global market, and all those considerations are certainly in there.
I would like to highlight that in this process, we mentioned efficiencies for transportation. The marine sectors currently have to provide 12 distinct forms, with five federal departments and agencies, in duplicate. Ninety per cent of trade, by volume, with non-U.S. countries is carried out by marine vessels. Therefore, making it easier to file that data once and have it shared securely across departments would meaningfully cut red tape as we work to diversify trade. That is just a good example of how, throughout this process, we would be helping Canadians and helping our businesses to conduct business faster, and therefore reducing costs, making us more competitive.
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the enlightened constituents in the knowledge-producing riding of Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke to speak to Bill C-39, a Liberal omnibus bill.
This omnibus bill is over 250 pages and seeks to amend over a dozen acts of Parliament, yet Canadians do not need to read past division 1 in part 1 to find the core problem. This bill does not touch the destructive mandate of the Impact Assessment Agency, and in fact it adds that mandate to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.
Before I explain why the mandate is so destructive, and how it will continue to ensure nothing gets built, we need to answer one question. Would this law have given the Canadian Nuclear Laboratories the green light to build the near surface disposal facility, NSDF, at Chalk River? While Parliament has debated this project before, I just want to quickly recap for any Canadians watching at home. Upstream from Parliament Hill is Chalk River Laboratories. Established in 1944, Chalk River was an instrumental part of the Manhattan project to develop the atomic bomb. The first nuclear reactor outside the United States was built and operated at Chalk River, reaching criticality just one month after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
For over 80 years, Chalk River has been producing leading-edge nuclear science in power generation and medical isotopes. It has also been generating low-level radioactive waste products, such as gowns, gloves and booties. All of that waste is still on site and stored following the best standards at that time. The Harper government began the process of dealing with that legacy, and the result was a plan for the near surface disposal facility.
Following years of consultations with all impacted first nations bands, the project received support from the municipality and the Algonquins of Pikwàkanagàn First Nation. That is when the project went before the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. The commission undertook its own consultations with the Algonquin Anishinabeg Nation Tribal Council as part of the Crown's study to consult under section 35 of the Constitution.
The commission also began consultations with the various Algonquin bands that make up the broader nation. These consultations included Kebaowek First Nation, a band located upstream from Chalk River and whose land claim does not include Chalk River. Late in the process, Kebaowek demanded funding from the commission to support a consultation framework agreement.
The band cited Justin Trudeau's hasty adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UNDRIP, which meant the commission had to seek free, prior and informed consent. The commission argued that it was not able to go beyond the Nuclear Safety and Control Act to interpret the treaty and how it applied to the framework of the commission.
After the commission approved the construction of the near surface disposal facility, Kebaowek took the company, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, to court, arguing that the commission had failed to follow UNDRIP when approving the construction. The band was successful before the courts, and the judge ordered new consultations to take place under the free, prior and informed consent framework. Last week, Kebaowek halted engagement with the commission, claiming the money provided by the commission was insufficient. Nothing in this bill addresses the increasing complexity of whether consultations should fall under the duty to consult framework or the free, prior and informed consent framework.
Kebaowek also took the government to court over the decision to grant an environmental permit under the Species at Risk Act. Kebaowek won in Federal Court, and last June saw the ruling upheld after the government appealed. The changes in this bill to the Species at Risk Act seem designed to address some of the issues raised by the Federal Court, yet even if this bill had been law when the proud socialist environment minister issued the permit, there is still no guarantee of success. In fact, the Federal Court had ruled that the permit the minister issued was unreasonable because it did not adequately justify the decision.
The amendment to the Species at Risk Act actually requires an even more robust justification. Should the Liberals appoint another radical far-left former criminal to be the environment minister, there is nothing preventing them from sabotaging the process by failing to provide sufficient justification for their decision.
If the point of this bill is to build Canada even stronger, we need to reduce uncertainty, not increase it by including more politicians in the process.
As we can see from the example of the near surface disposal facility and the ongoing litigation over consultations, the bill fails to address the uncertainty caused by never-ending legal challenges and appeals. In fact, the bill may signal the death of the nuclear industry in Canada, and that is because, rather than repeal the Impact Assessment Act, the bill would incorporate the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission into the mandate of that bill:
The Government of Canada, the Minister, the Agency, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and federal authorities, in the administration of this Act, must exercise their powers in a manner that fosters sustainability, respects the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, takes into account Indigenous knowledge, considers the cumulative effects of physical activities, applies the precautionary principle and promotes cooperation among jurisdictions and with the Indigenous peoples of Canada.
The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has been a world-leading regulator. The commission earned its stellar reputation by applying policies and regulations rooted in science, evidence and risk management. That is the exact opposite of the approach based on the precautionary principle. While the Government of Canada has adopted “A Framework for the Application of Precaution and Science-Based Decision Making About Risk”, the document fully admits that “Ultimately, [the precautionary principle] is guided by judgment, based on values and priorities”.
Canada's nuclear future cannot be determined by the Liberal Party's priority to be re-elected. Whether Canada develops a fusion power industry cannot be decided by the values of far-left activists and judges.
By incorporating the commission into the mandate of the Impact Assessment Act, this government would open the door to endless litigation, just like we have seen with the near surface disposal facility. Canada's current legal framework allows a single first nations band with no claim to the land that Chalk River Labs sits on, and upstream from the experimental facility, to derail a decade-long process. Kebaowek First Nation, with the help of foreign funding, was able to use UNDRIP and the Species at Risk Act to block Canada from building.
This bill would open the door to any group to take any applicant to court if the commission failed to adequately apply the Impact Assessment Act. This is why no private investor wants to take the risk of building a pipeline. I imagine a gifted entrepreneur who has invented a new type of fusion reactor. Where would they decide to put their fusion company? Could they really have confidence in Canada if, after investing millions of dollars and years of filling out paperwork, their application was approved, only to turn around and have a court freeze their investment because one judge decided the commission had failed to adequately consider the sustainability of hydrogen? Just because 90% of the atoms in the universe are hydrogen, that is not going to stop the far left from claiming fusion power is the next existential threat.
My Albertan colleagues dubbed the Impact Assessment Act the “no more pipelines” bill. By scooping in the nuclear commission, the Liberals are turning this into a “no more build anything” bill. No number of amendments to the act will get Canada building, so long as the mandate requires adopting anti-science ideas such as the precautionary principle. We will never achieve reconciliation if a first nation with a direct interest in a project can be dismissed in favour of a first nation with no real stake in the project. Who would invest in Canada if they can be dragged into court because a socialist minister sabotaged their permit?
The Liberals will use their backdoor majority to send this bill to a special committee. That will be the last chance for these Liberals to prove whether they really do want to build Canada strong or just build bureaucracy strong.
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Speaker, I could not disagree more with what my colleague just said. Her riding also borders a small part of my riding, because the community of Kebaowek, which she mentions, is part of my riding, and its ancestral territory borders my colleague's riding.
Obviously, indigenous peoples do not share the same understanding of the borders of Quebec and Ontario, and this is particularly true among the Anishinabe, so when my colleague speaks of consultations involving first nations, no, those consultations did not take place, and that is why the Supreme Court ruled in their favour.
What my colleague wants, of course, is to strip first nations of their power to enforce their own conditions. She made a rather fascinating claim that money could buy off the chief of the Kebaowek community. The community supposedly did not have enough money, but if it were given more money, well, obviously, it would sign. On what basis is my colleague so viscerally attacking the very integrity of people who are standing up to protect the planet?
As for the consent of first nations, what happened with the Chalk River project was that Canadian Nuclear Laboratories approached the Algonquins of Ontario, who are “pretendians”, people who claim to be indigenous or Métis, who are not recognized by the House and who nevertheless speak on behalf of first nations and Anishinabe people. That is a fundamental mistake that I cannot support and will never support.
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON
Mr. Speaker, I think I just heard the member call the Pikwàkanagàn and the Anishinabe “pretendians”. I have never heard that before.
The very first people CNL approached when this project first came to light were our first nations people. The member said it outright. This is all about money. It is not about doing the right thing and doing it safely so that the people and the environment are protected. That is what this project would do. It would make the environment and people even safer.
Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned a few things in her speech that I think are inaccurate. She said that no projects have seen shovels in the ground, but that is completely false.
I am thinking of the Contrecoeur port project, which began last spring, and the Mackenzie Valley Highway, which began construction this summer. I am also thinking of the electrical transmission project on the north shore, which got under way this year. Those are a few examples.
Building projects of national interest means shovels in the ground. Thanks to Bill C‑39, we will continue to build even more. I encourage my colleague to review the list of projects of national interest that are being studied and to follow their progress very closely, because there is a lot of potential there for strengthening our economy.
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON
Mr. Speaker, all I can say is thank God those projects got started before Bill C-39 came into force.
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Mr. Speaker, I am truly thankful for my colleague's comments tonight on Bill C-69. We have not heard one Liberal in this place talk about it. It is fundamentally the problem and the reason there are no projects being built in this country.
I want to remind the House that under Stephen Harper, we built nine major pipeline projects. We had 14 LNG projects ready to be built in this country, and after the Liberals came to power, all of those projects disappeared. I wonder what my colleague has to say about that.
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is going to take quite a while to make up for the damage the previous prime minister did. The problem is, we still have the same cast of characters here, and all it takes is another left-wing zealot to be in the position of environment minister and everything will shut down again.
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Speaker, does my colleague seriously believe that it would be a good idea to set up a nuclear waste dump on a mountain top, knowing that the runoff would fall into the Ottawa River, 200 kilometres from here? The consequences could impact a population centre of 1.6 million here in the Gatineau-Ottawa region. The impact could then extend another 200 kilometres downstream to the Montreal area, affecting 80% or more of Quebec's population. Spent nuclear waste has to be stored somewhere. There may be suitable locations in the Canadian Shield. If Ontario wants to assume those risks, it can manage them within its own borders, but they should not be imposed on Quebec.
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON
Mr. Speaker, my dear colleague has mischaracterized what this project is. Those used booties, gloves and gowns are already in the ground.
The plan is to take those away from the outdated science that put it in the ground and put it into something safer. This is not Carp mountain, the hill of garbage. I would invite him to go to Cobourg, which has a near-surface disposal facility. It looks like it originally did, under nature. The water is tested. It is pure when it comes out. This is a good way to clean up our land. I would hope that the stalling done to prevent this from going forward moves to the side and allows our land to be remediated.
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Mr. Speaker, I have been on my feet a number of times today. I am pleased to talk about something I asked the government about a while back as to whether the government would adopt our Conservative action plan to fix diesel prices in this country. I mentioned in my question that a guy named Steve Van Raalte from my riding was having trouble paying for fuel. He is a heavy-duty mechanic, and he has to drive around from job site to job site. This was really cutting into his bottom line.
I pointed out that there are at least two companies in Alberta that are interested in developing and are working on developing a process to make diesel fuel out of natural gas. This is a pretty cool technology. I will just talk a little bit about Shell's Pennzoil. Shell developed the ability to make engine oil out of natural gas and brought it to market commercially in 2011, so it is entirely possible.
The reality is that the companies that are developing this cool technology will probably never set up in Alberta. They are developing the technology in Alberta, but they will probably set up in another jurisdiction because of the industrial carbon tax. There is no way to pay for it when they have to pay the industrial carbon tax. The other challenge they face is that the banks will not fund them, and insurance companies are not interested in funding them, because of the policies and the rhetoric that have come out of the Liberal government over the last 10 years.
Interestingly, when I asked this question the week before last, I got a response from the parliamentary secretary to the housing minister, addressing housing. I did not get an answer at all about diesel prices and the things I was concerned about. The answer was shockingly out of touch. I am hoping that tonight we will actually get an answer to my question about whether the government will get out of the way and remove all the taxes on diesel fuel.
Diesel prices have risen by over 80%. I would point out that the last time the price of oil was at $100 a barrel, we were paying about $1.40 a litre for diesel fuel. Today we are paying $2.44. A whole bunch of Liberal policies have been put in place that are causing this, from our money's not being worth as much as it used to be, to our not having developed our own resources in Canada because of the stifling, leave-it-in-the-ground Liberals.
We have put forward our emergency fuel plan. We want to provide emergency remittance and tax relief to companies. We want to get rid of the industrial carbon tax. We want to make sure we can get the refineries and the pipelines built. We want to be able to make sure that the energy we produce here in Canada can be used in all parts of Canada. It is crazy to every Albertan that we are the energy superpower of the world yet cannot get our energy to the east coast. We also want to make sure that we have a reserve so we can have a buffer in the price shocks that happen.
I am wondering if the Liberal member can answer me. Will the Liberals be supporting our plan to get diesel prices down so guys like Steve can make enough money to put food on the table for their kids?
Claude Guay LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are living through a period of economic uncertainty shaped by global instability and rising costs. In response, this government continues to focus on what we can control, not on one specific measure, by looking at the total picture: building a strong Canadian economy, diversifying our trade partners abroad, delivering responsible fiscal management and supporting Canadians who are under pressure from everyday expenses. People across the country are worried about the price of essentials like fuel, food, housing and daily necessities. That is maybe why the member heard about housing.
This government understands those pressures, and we are taking concrete, responsible action to ease the burden while safeguarding long-term economic stability. This includes immediate support on daily costs. In April, we temporarily lifted the excise tax on gasoline and diesel through the summer months, initially planned until Labour Day. On the first day of implementation in April, gasoline prices declined by 11¢ per litre, delivering immediate relief to consumers. We also ended the fuel charge last year. On September 2, we announced an extension of the measure until January 31, 2027, after which we will apply 50% of the regular excise tax rate from February 1 to March 31, 2027.
All told, this is estimated to provide $5.3 billion in tax relief for Canadians, of which $2.9 billion is from the September extension. This pause on the excise tax lowers prices at the pump and helps reduce transportation and production costs across the economy, supporting families, truck drivers and the businesses that rely on them to move goods. Many businesses also get back the GST on fuel through their income tax returns.
The government also introduced the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit to provide additional significant support to more than 12 million Canadians. It is based on the goods and services tax credit, but it is more generous. As of July 2026, payment amounts have increased by 25% for five years, and in June, those 12 million Canadians received a one-time top-up payment. Combined, this means that a family of four will receive up to $1,890 this year and a single person up to $950.
We know that housing affordability continues to challenge many Canadians, just like the price of fuel, especially those trying to purchase their first home. That is why we eliminated the GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes valued up to $1 million, a measure that can provide savings of up to $50,000.
Taken together as a whole, these and other actions reflect a balanced approach, immediate cost relief, targeted support for those who need it the most, and prudent management of the public purse, which the member opposite and his team often suggest to us. This government continues to respond to affordability pressures with fairness, discipline and a focus on results for all Canadians.
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Mr. Speaker, I am thankful the member found the right answer to read tonight on the right topic, but he never addressed what I asked him, which is what he had to say to Steve about the realities of living life in Canada.
The member is new here, but I want to bring him back to nearly a decade ago when the Canadian dollar was worth more than the American dollar. We could afford to buy groceries for our kids. We did not need a school program to feed our kids. The government continues to do things that lower the value of our money, and that is one of the major reasons that everything costs so much more. Pouring more money into the system only inflates costs. We have talked about this endlessly.
We have called for all taxes to be removed from diesel fuel. Will the Liberals commit to removing their Liberal clean fuel standard?
Claude Guay Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect their government to respond to rising costs with practical solutions, which does not take a master's degree in economics, and that is exactly what the government is doing. Extending the fuel tax relief is only one important measure helping families and workers.
What is really important is that the member's question ignored the root cause of the fuel supply challenges, which is the Russian aggression in Ukraine and the situation in the Strait of Hormuz. Instead, he tries to blame Canadians. With our G7 partners, we are working to address this issue, and since an agreement was reached last Friday to increase fuel supplies, prices have declined by 5%. This demonstrates that global action is required to address global challenges, because the increase in Canadian production alone is not enough. Affordability requires—
The EconomyAdjournment Proceedings
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the brave women and men serving in the Canadian Armed Forces. Last June, I asked the defence minister if the Liberal government would reverse its policy to slash the housing differential for CAF members by 72% while increasing the rent by 5%. The minister responded to my question about rent by claiming that applications to join the CAF are up, that more women are joining, that the culture is changing, that they are buying weapon systems and that they are buying rifles. He then finished his laundry list by claiming that Stephen Harper left a mess.
The minister ran away from the question faster than a Russian soldier does from the sound of a drone. Having served across the aisle from the member for Ottawa South for over 20 years, I do not believe that his answer was the one he would have given had he been properly briefed. The minister's office had four months to draft a better answer. I look forward to the parliamentary secretary's response, where he will explain why Liberals are hiking rent and slashing the housing benefit. If I had to guess, he will try to avoid the rent issue and focus on the pay increase, a classic Liberal policy of giving five dollars with their right hand and taking $10 with their left.
For any Canadians wondering why the Liberals seem to always work at cross-purposes when it comes to the armed forces, I would encourage them to pick up a copy of the book Into the Breach: A Soldier's Journey. It is a memoir from former chief of defence staff General Wayne Eyre. A passage was published over the weekend in The Globe and Mail. In it, General Eyre recounts some of his experience in dealing with the Liberal government following the second invasion of Ukraine by Russia: “That began an exasperating two-year odyssey of strategic indecision and procrastination. As global security continued to precipitously decline, Canada dithered, readiness suffered and respect from allies evaporated further.”
At one point in the two-year mission to convince the Liberals to spend more on defence, the general considered writing a letter to the prime minister, documenting his concerns. The deputy minister for national defence advised the general that if he wanted to really get his message to the prime minister, he would need to make a placemat instead. This placemat would be a large piece of paper graphically depicting complicated information in an understandable manner. It is shocking to learn that the public service treated Trudeau like a child at a chain restaurant. Despite operation infographic, the prime minister was not persuaded.
The Prime Minister's Office asked for more reviews. More reviews meant more delay. The general described this as strategic indecision. The strategy is not the defence of Canada but the re-election of the Liberal Party. This is the exact same approach the current Prime Minister is taking with his never-ending review of the F-35 purchase. Nothing is actually being reviewed. The Liberals are just engaged in strategic indecision. The Liberals think that by withholding a decision on the F-35, they can use the purchase as leverage in negotiations that are not taking place.
The Liberals desperately want Canadians to think the Liberal government has changed. Meanwhile, it hikes rent for Canadian soldiers while paying $20 million in back rent for a slab of concrete it calls a spaceport, which it never used. The Liberals signed a 10-year lease on a concrete slab they call a spaceport. In Canada, renters typically have to pay first month's and last month's rent when moving into an apartment. What Canadians do not do is pay for rent 12 months before they move in, but that is exactly what the Brookfield government did. The Liberals took out a nine-year lease on a concrete slab and agreed to pay for 10 years.
