Duly noted. We will be mindful and pay attention to that.
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.
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.
Democratic InstitutionsOral Questions
Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like to seek unanimous consent in the House to table the ATIP documents from the minister—
Democratic InstitutionsOral Questions
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, my point of order picks up from where the member for Berthier—Maskinongé left off. There was so much noise during question period.
I particularly noted and want to object to the fact that when the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona was trying to ask her question, there appeared to be a coordinated Liberal effort, because the same heckle was being used while she was trying to get her question in.
Please listen to the tapes and see if we can remind our colleagues that they are not supposed to interrupt a member when they are speaking.
Democratic InstitutionsOral Questions
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
That is a good reminder, and it is one I endorse.
The hon. member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South.
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Mr. Speaker, during Oral Questions, the topic of the 91% of assets the Prime Minister has in the U.S. came up. I would like to table his ethics disclosure and seek unanimous—
Democratic InstitutionsOral Questions
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
It is sufficiently calm at the moment that we may continue with the orders of the day.
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Opposition Motion—Diesel PricesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Mr. Speaker, energy policy is not an abstract debate for academic journals or Ottawa boardrooms. In fact, it directly dictates whether a working family can afford their monthly bills. The Liberal government treats domestic energy developments as something to penalize, suppress or hold back. This is, at least, in action, because we know that with talk, it likes to promise a good game. Nevertheless, energy is the lifeblood of our supply chain, and penalizing energy does not reduce consumption. In fact, it simply drives up costs for the people who can least afford it, who are working families in this country.
Our emergency fuel relief plan is designed to address this exact bottleneck. This is what we have put forward in the House today. By offering immediate tax relief on diesel and removing red tape for domestic energy infrastructure, we would directly attack the root cause of transportation costs and food inflation. We would take the burden off the back of Canadian producers, Canadian transporters and Canadian consumers, who ultimately end up paying that additional amount.
This motion is about restoring economic common sense to our federal policies. It is about recognizing that we cannot tax the producer without punishing the consumer. We cannot drive up the cost of transportation without also driving up the price of bread, meat and potatoes at the supermarket.
At its core, the motion the Conservatives have brought forward today has to do with everyday working people here in this great country. It is about the local farmer who reached out to my office because he sees the writing on the wall and the link between the cost of the fuel he is using to produce his crop, take it off the field and send it to market and the cost of food. There is a strong link. It is about the truck driver working gruelling hours to deliver essentials to our communities. It is about every single Canadian household struggling to make ends meet under 11 years of compounding Liberal policies that have mis-served this country. This includes the millions of Canadians, many of them working Canadians, who have had to line up at food banks in order to feed their families because the government has put policies in place that are punitive in nature.
Canadians were told to judge the government by the prices at the grocery store. This is what the Prime Minister invited them to do when he was running for election. The judgment is in. The current system is failing working families. The cost at grocery stores is only going up, not down.
It is time to bring down fuel prices. It is time to lower the cost of doing business. It is time to give Canadian families the relief they so desperately need and deserve.
The Conservatives have put forward a legitimate, common-sense plan that will serve Canada well by tackling the root problems Canadians face. I urge every member in the House to vote yes to the motion that has been presented to them today. Stand on the side of Canadians. Vote with us.
Opposition Motion—Diesel PricesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, the member said the core of the motion today is, in essence, about people and the issue of affordability, and I believe she used the term “cost of food”. It made me flash back to the number of things the government is doing, including the tax levy exemption. The other thing that came to my mind was the national school food program. It delivers food to hundreds of thousands of children in every region of our country, yet the Conservative Party has determined that it is a garbage program and it is going to get rid of it.
I wonder if the member believes the Conservative Party should flip-flop on that position and support the national school food program.
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are very concerned about affordability. They are very concerned about the cost of goods at the grocery store. They are not asking for a government program that would dole out cash in order to assist them for a short period of time.
What Canadians are asking for is systemic. It is in that very structure that holds up our economy where they want to see change brought, because it is those types of policy changes that would help get infrastructure built. It is those types of changes that would help create jobs and increase people's paycheques. When people are able to exist in that type of space, they are able to afford a life for themselves.
They do not want another government program. They do not want to struggle to pay their mortgage while the government feeds their kids at school. That is not what they are asking for. They are asking for the government to put policies in place that allow them to stand on their own two feet and take care of their family.
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
Mr. Speaker, we have seen the Prime Minister play the blame game when it comes to rising fuel prices. He likes to blame external factors. Last week, he blamed the provinces. However, at the end of the day, there is a lot he can do to bring down costs, including lifting all federal taxes on fuel. I would submit that the Prime Minister ought to control what he can control and lift those taxes, instead of playing this blame game. If he did so, he could save the average family $1,200.
I wonder if my colleague could elaborate on some steps the Prime Minister could take.
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is correct. Right now, we know that in Canada, we are paying approximately 24¢ more per litre than people are paying in the United States of America. We know it is 31¢ more than the world average.
That being the case, it is a proof point that would suggest that this is not due to world economic factors, but rather domestic policy. Those domestic policies can be impacted and should be impacted by the government. It is its responsibility to act in the interest of the Canadian people and greater affordability.
To that end, it would be like taking off the industrial carbon tax, the fuel surcharge tax and the so-called clean standard tax that is applied to fuel, and making sure that we have reserves. There is so much that can be done domestically to assist.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, a Conservative member asked a question about the federal government playing the blame game, which is just not true. Let me pose it in a different way.
Can the Conservatives explain to Canadians, on the issue of affordability, what they actually support among the multitude of programs the federal government has put in place? Is it the tax break for 22 million Canadians, the groceries benefit program for Canadians, the dental program, pharmacare, the national school food program for children, or the tax break we are giving them—
Opposition Motion—Diesel PricesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
We want to leave some time for the hon. member for Lethbridge to answer that question.
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Mr. Speaker, if I may, let me reframe that for the Canadians who may not be following along with the names of each and every one of these handouts the hon. member is outlining.
Essentially, what he is saying is the government doled out this cash, this cash and this cash, and should therefore be thanked. In fact, he is saying the government failed. That is why Canadians are struggling. That is why the government feels the need to step up and dole out that cash.
Abdelhaq Sari Liberal Bourassa, QC
Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Mississauga—Lakeshore.
I am grateful for this opportunity to talk about the official opposition's motion, which addresses the reality of the cost of living. High prices are a daily reality in my riding of Bourassa and in many Montreal neighbourhoods.
In Montreal North, families are counting every dollar at the grocery store every day. Workers are wondering whether they will be able to fill up their tank before their next paycheque. Retailers are absorbing price increases they never chose. These people do not want slogans like the ones we are hearing from the opposition. They want initiatives and results.
We live in an unstable world. Wars on the other side of the world, trade tensions and weakened supply chains have impacts that trickle down to our kitchens and gas pumps. Canada did not trigger these crises, but it has a duty to respond, and our government is responding. We chose to act here and now. We chose to take action with Bill C‑38.
Bill C-38, the Canadian fuel affordability act, extends the suspension of the federal excise tax on gasoline, diesel and aviation fuel until January 31, 2027. Zero, not a penny, as we say back home in Quebec. This suspension has been in effect since April 20. Members opposite surely remember that. From day one, the price at the pump fell by an average of 11¢ a litre. In practical terms, that means savings of about $5 on a 50-litre fill-up.
We are doing this responsibly. We are doing it, of course, because we are thinking about Canadian families. The tax will be gradually reintroduced in February and March 2027 at half the regular rate: five cents per litre for gasoline and two cents for diesel. There will be no shock and no surprises.
The impact goes far beyond the family vehicle. From truck drivers and farmers to delivery companies and grocery stores, the entire supply chain that feeds the country will benefit.
Yes, diesel prices have risen around the world, but let us set the record straight and correct a few points that have been raised by the other side of the House. Diesel costs less in Canada than in most G7 countries. Since the end of February, prices have increased less here than in the United States, and the provincial diesel taxes, which range from roughly nine cents to more than 20¢ per litre, are not necessarily up to Ottawa.
Let us talk about affordability. That has to do with more than just the price per litre. The opposition wants to talk about fuel, so let us talk about it, but affordability is not just about fuel. It does not come down to just the price per litre. It is measured in a number of ways. I will quickly list them off and go through them in more detail afterward. Affordability also comes down to groceries, home ownership, pay and our children's lunch boxes. It is also measured in equity.
Let us talk about groceries. The new Canada groceries and essentials benefit provides 25% more than the old GST credit. It is tax-free, and it benefits more than 12 million low- and modest-income Canadians. A payment is coming up this week. With this summer's supplement, a family of four will receive up to $1,890 this year and about $1,400 a year for the next four years. The amount for a single person is $950 this year and about $700 for the next four years.
Affordability is measured in home ownership. For first-time homebuyers, there is no GST on homes up to $1 million, and it is reduced for homes between $1 million and $1.5 million. That means up to $50,000 in the pockets of our young dreamers who really want to make their dream of owning a home and getting on the property ladder a reality.
It is also measured in terms of pay, as I said earlier. We cut the tax rate for the first bracket of personal income from 15% to 14%. This has benefited 22 million Canadians. It puts $420 per year per person in their pockets, or $840 for a dual-income household.
It is reflected in a child's lunch box. Allow me to make a quick aside: It is a shame to hear people on the other side of the House say that this measure, which helps many young people and schoolchildren, is garbage. Canada's national school food program, which is now permanent, provides meals for approximately 400,000 children each year. It saves a family with two children nearly $800 a year on groceries.
It is also measured by our work and actions in the area of equity. Thanks to the automation of federal benefits, 5.5 million low-income Canadians will automatically receive the support to which they are entitled, such as the Canada groceries and essentials benefit and the Canada child benefit. A benefit that is not claimed because of a lack of information is, unfortunately, a benefit that is lost.
In closing, we have no control over the global forces driving up prices, but we do have control over the measures we must put in place here and now and over our government's initiatives, which must be just, fair, sincere, and, above all, responsible. This responsibility aspect is exactly I am so uncomfortable with the motion that has been introduced by the party across the way.
Our response is to take meaningful, measured action and, as I just said, to act responsibly. The opposition is proposing long-term solutions to a problem we are facing today. We are delivering results today while building a stronger economy for tomorrow. Making life affordable and strengthening our economy is not a choice between two goals. It is a single, unified commitment to families in Bourassa and across the country.
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about acting responsibly. I would like him to explain to me whether he feels that it is responsible to provide billions of dollars in subsidies to the only industry or one of the few economic sectors that is not subject to tariffs, when some industries and economic sectors are currently suffering as a result of the tariff war.
Is it responsible to send billions of dollars, whether via Trans Mountain and Pacific link or through tax credits to the tune of $100 billion, which we all pay for as a society, to an economic sector that is making record profits? I would remind the House that the oil and gas industry will make an estimated $90 billion in profits in 2026.
This is all for an industry that is 60% American-owned and sells 90% of its products to Americans. Once again, this is an economic sector that is not affected by tariffs. The projects will be not be ready for another 12, 13, 14 or 15 years, so they will have no impact on the tariff war.
Does he think these are responsible initiatives that will have an impact right now?
Abdelhaq Sari Liberal Bourassa, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his eloquence, but I would like to stay on topic.
So as not to mislead anyone, it is very important to note that Bill C-38 does not affect Quebec's jurisdictions or its carbon market. It does not affect any portfolio. It is also important to point out that our government is not reneging on its environmental commitments; far from it.
Opposition Motion—Diesel PricesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague can provide some additional thoughts in regard to the larger issue of affordability. The gas tax levy break that is being provided to Canadians is significant. It will help out greatly. However, it is part of a broader package, as the government understands the issue of affordability and is doing what it can by bringing in a number of different measures.
I wonder if the member can provide his thoughts on how important it is, as we continue to try to grow the economy and make a stronger and healthier economy overall, that we address the issue of affordability by having the types of measures we have brought in.
Abdelhaq Sari Liberal Bourassa, QC
Madam Speaker, first of all, I thank my colleague for the question. I think it is relevant because the watchword here is resilience. We need a resilient economy. A resilient economy must have clear, concrete solutions that go beyond today's topic. As I mentioned earlier, beyond the affordability of gas prices, we have put measures in place to help with groceries, to support access to home ownership, to address pay, to help 400,000 young people with school meals, and, of course, to promote equity and access to information regarding government assistance.
With these actions, we are building a resilient, balanced and, above all, responsible economy.
Anna Roberts Conservative King—Vaughan, ON
Madam Speaker, it is important to remember the record of the government on fuel taxes. On three separate occasions, Conservatives brought forward opposition day motions proposing relief for Canadians at the pumps, including reductions to the federal excise tax and other federal taxes on fuel. Each time, every member of the government voted against those measures.
The record is clear: Conservatives have repeatedly proposed lowering the tax burden on fuel, and on three separate occasions, the Liberal government voted against it. I believe in my heart and soul that the farmers and families of this country need relief now, and we are asking the Liberals to support our motion.
Abdelhaq Sari Liberal Bourassa, QC
Madam Speaker, I noted several points, but the most important one was when she asked for measures to be taken now. That is just what we are doing: taking measures now. Prices fell by 11¢ per litre on day one. That is for the mom who wants to fill up her car. That really makes a big difference to her wallet. That is for someone who uses their car for their company, for their own small or medium-sized business. That has a real impact here and now. What the members on the other side of the House are asking for is not measurable in terms of the impact it can have on taxpayers, and, above all, it is not responsible.
With that, I will say it again: We are going to have an economy that is resilient but, above all, responsible.