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.
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Madam Speaker, all day, we hear the Conservatives and Liberals fight over who brought down the prices in terms of taxes on fuel. However, we are not hearing about the record profits from big oil and gas companies. They are posting record profits. There is literally no threshold on how much money these companies can make before the Liberals bring in an excess profit tax.
When will the Liberals bring in an excess profit tax on big oil and gas?
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Madam Speaker, I can say we are supporting a stronger country and a more resilient economy for all Canadians. We are focused on the affordability measures that every Canadian can take advantage of. That could be by helping to afford groceries and essentials on a monthly basis, where we know Canadian households are cash-strapped, or creating jobs all across Canada by boosting productivity and ensuring that we have the generational investments in housing, defence and infrastructure that the country needs, so we can serve the foreign markets that we are developing quite quickly.
Serge Cormier Liberal Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Madam Speaker, I am really pleased that my colleague talked about Canada's national school food program, because, as he may recall, I introduced a bill for that in the House, and, in the end, the government went ahead and created this program, which is now permanent.
When I visit schools in my riding, I see free breakfasts and free or discounted lunches. However, as my colleague said, the Conservatives voted against a program that is so important for families and for children who go to school.
I would also like my colleague to tell me how this kind of program has helped many children and probably many families in his riding make ends meet.
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Madam Speaker, I really appreciate my colleague's work in this area. We shared many conversations and had many meetings about the national school food program and the importance of getting the federal government to invest in it because of how essential it is for the growth and development of our young people. The program ensures that they have the nourishment they need to grow, develop, retain information and learn at school. Having that program in place as a federal investment has allowed us to reach 400,000 more children per year right across Canada. That is essential.
I have three daughters, and if any one of them were struggling to meet their daily intake of nutrition, I would want to solve that gap. I cannot believe the Conservatives voted against a national school food program. They actually chose to deprive 400,000 kids of the nourishment they need to develop and grow into responsible, contributing members of our society.
I cannot fathom how shameful it is to see the Conservatives stand up in this House every day and try to lecture us about Canadians' affordability challenges and woes, which are quite real. The fact that they are standing up and saying we need to do something about food and the cost of food, while voting against the interests of children across this country, is abhorrent at the very least.
Access by members of Parliament to a technical briefing on a new pipelinePrivilegeGovernment Orders
Liberal
Arielle Kayabaga Liberal London West, ON
Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in response to the question of privilege raised on October 5 by the member for Saint-Jean concerning briefings for members on Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act.
As members will recall, this bill was introduced on September 21 during Routine Proceedings. I can confirm that technical briefings on the bill were offered to all parties after the bill was introduced. Having read the member's remarks carefully, I suspect that her main concern is not the technical briefing on Bill C-39, but rather the government's update on the west coast pipeline on October 1.
If that is the member's issue, I can assure members that there are still clear precedents supporting the view that the government may announce policies and provide updates on non-legislative matters outside the House. The precedent the member cited in her remarks has no bearing on the issue that was raised. This briefing did not concern a legislative measure that was to be presented to the House during the notice period. Rather, this was an update on a policy matter. That distinction is very important.
Our government is committed to working constructively with all parties in the House. The Prime Minister has stated that the government will work with other parties to advance our strategic and legislative agenda. In fact, we have offered technical briefings to all members of Parliament on legislative proposals once they have been introduced in the House. We are doing this not only because it is the right thing to do, but also to help inform and elevate the substantive debate on legislative proposals before the House.
I now want to turn to the precedents that support this view. On April 11, 1997, Speaker Parent delivered his ruling on a matter concerning a technical briefing, which the media was invited to attend, given by officials from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration prior to a press conference by the minister regarding the department's immigrant investor program. In his decision, he reviewed a number of precedents and concluded that the matter did not constitute a prima facie question of privilege. The Speaker stated:
On December 1, 1992 when a member complained that the media had been given information by the government concerning financial assistance to Canadian Airlines when the same information was denied to members of Parliament, Speaker Fraser ruled [at] page 14360 of the Debates there was no question of privilege. He also reminded the House that:
Privilege is properly raised only when something has happened that makes it impossible or nearly impossible to carry out the obligations that a member has as a member of this House.
On December 15, 1987, a member objected to the fact that the government had established a press lock-up and briefing regarding a proposed agricultural program and that members were denied access to the information. Speaker Fraser's ruling which can be found at page 11788 of the Debates, stated that this was not a prima facie question of privilege because it did not impinge on the member's ability to carry on his duties as a member of Parliament.
In the matter submitted by the member for Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, the Chair cannot find that she has been obstructed in the performance of her parliamentary duties. The question raised did not involve access to parliamentary proceedings, either in the Chamber or in a committee meeting room. Ultimately, as the hon. member pointed out in her presentation, the officials offered to give her the same briefing after question period.
On the issue of contempt, I would refer again to Speaker Fraser. In a ruling given on October 10, 1989, Speaker Fraser said: “Broadly speaking, contempts are offences against the authority or the dignity of the House of Commons”.
Does the fact that the media was given information before it was going to be made available to the member constitute a contempt of the House of Commons? At page 125 of the 21st edition of Erskine May, in chapter 9 dealing with contempts, it is stated:
The House will proceed against those who obstruct members in the discharge of their responsibilities to the House or in their participation in its proceedings.
It seems to me that members of Parliament were not denied information or obstructed in their duties in the House. There was, after all, a press conference scheduled for that same morning and it was broadcast on the closed circuit television system of the House, making it accessible to all members. The Chair finds it difficult to conclude that the actions in question were an affront to the authority and dignity of the House.
For the reasons previously stated and in light of the precedents dealing with similar matters, I do not consider that this is a prima facie case of privilege.
The Speaker has no control and should have no control over such events, whether it be the manner in which they are organized or how access to them is managed.
Access by members of Parliament to a technical briefing on a new pipelinePrivilegeGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
I thank the hon. deputy House leader of the government. This matter will be taken under advisement.
It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock, The Economy; the hon. member for Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, National Defence; the hon. member for Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, Taxation.
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Juanita Nathan Liberal Pickering—Brooklin, ON
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise and speak about this subject today, which is of crucial importance to all Canadians.
We are all aware that recent changes on the global stage have made life more unpredictable, more complex and, for too many people, more costly. Our largest trading partner has imposed tariffs on our imports, significantly impacting Canadian workers and businesses from coast to coast to coast. Conservatives may not want to call these tariffs what they are, but on this side of the House, we understand the impacts they are having on Canadian families, businesses, exports and workers.
Conflict and instability in the Middle East have led to an increase in fuel prices around the globe. Conservatives may want to blame Canada and Canadians for the challenges we face, but on this side of the House, we are positioning Canada to thrive within a rapidly changing world.
Facing these circumstances, Canadians do not need slogans, and they do not need social media influences. They need relief, and relief is what our government has delivered. Through carefully considered measures, we are strengthening our country's sovereignty and economic resilience while supporting Canadians through these challenges.
Since day one in March 2025, we have worked to save Canadians hard-earned money. On July 1 of last year, 22 million Canadians, more than half the country, had their income taxes lowered when we cut the first income tax bracket from 15% to 14%. This represents an annual tax savings of $420 for individuals or up to $840 for two-income families. To help support Canada's most vulnerable people, we introduced automatic federal benefits filings, starting with the 2026 tax year. This change will automatically give up to 5.5 million low-income Canadians the benefits they qualify for by the 2028 tax year.
We also removed the goods and services tax on new homes costing up to $1 million for first-time homebuyers, and we lowered it on new homes priced between $1 million and $1.5 million. This move gives more Canadians, especially young families, the chance to live the Canadian dream of owning a home. Speaking of young families, they know the importance of good food during school days. We made permanent the national school food program, a program derided by Conservatives as “garbage”, to provide meals for up to 400,000 children across Canada. This program saves participating families with two school-age children approximately $800 annually on groceries.
Food is essential, but it has grown more costly. To help more than 12 million Canadians manage their grocery budget, we introduced the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit, which provides a family of four with up to $1,890 this year and about $1,400 annually for the next four years. Single Canadians will have a benefit of up to $950 this year and about $700 for the next four years.
Food is fuel for learning minds and working bodies, but groceries do not make their way into stores on their own. Canada is a vast nation, and moving people and products is a necessity that requires fuel of a different kind. We know that consumers are facing higher gas and diesel prices at the pump, and businesses have their profitability impacted by the increased cost of getting goods to market. I know that in my riding of Pickering—Brooklin, this is true.
Although the factors that led to these high fuel prices are not within Canada's control, Canadians expect a strong response. We are focused on what we can control. That is why we introduced Bill C-38, the Canadian fuel affordability act, which is currently being studied. Bill C-39 is being debated in the House and will be debated later on today as well.
Bill C-38 would build on the temporary suspension of the federal fuel excise tax that we introduced earlier this year, bringing the tax on gasoline, aviation gasoline, diesel and aviation fuel to zero cents per litre. For Canadians filling up their cars, it means a tax cut of 10¢ per litre on gasoline, a savings of about five dollars on a typical 50-litre fill-up, and four cents per litre on diesel fuel. While this cut was originally set to expire last month, Bill C-38, if passed, would extend that suspension of the federal fuel excise tax until January 31, 2027, after the holiday season. Regular rates would then be reduced by 50% through March 31, 2027, inclusive.
Higher energy prices are a concern not just here at home but in every part of the planet. We are fortunate to be rich in many natural resources and to be the fourth-largest exporter of crude oil in the world. This is why the Prime Minister has said, “Canada has what the world wants.”
This summer, the executive director of the International Energy Agency said that Canada has a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to become a global energy exporting superpower. The leaders of our G7 peer nations are asking us to step up and supply the world with the sustainable, reliable energy they need to power their economies. This is an opportunity we are leaning into and seizing with intention.
That is why we recently announced that Pacific link, an oil pipeline that will bring Albertan oil to ports in British Columbia, will be listed as a project of national interest under the Building Canada Act. Designating the Pacific link pipeline as a project of national interest means it will get built faster, reducing Canada's dependency on U.S. markets as buyers for our oil by giving us a new ability to export to Asian customers. Once completed, the Pacific link will allow us to ship an additional one million barrels of oil each day across the Pacific.
While we are prioritizing measures to help Canadians during this difficult time and working to create the right climate to grow the economy and foster investment, we have never wavered in our focus on fiscal responsibility. The International Monetary Fund forecasts that our country will be the second-fastest growing economy in the G7 groups of nations this year and in 2027. Canada's sovereign debt continues to command the highest rating, a AAA credit rating, from Fitch, from Standard & Poor's and from Moody's, the three main debt rating agencies. As we know, this exemplary credit rating allows Canada to issue debt to investors on the best possible terms.
As well, as noted in April's spring economic update, Canada is on track to reduce its deficit in 2025-26 by $11 billion more than originally forecasted in the last federal budget. This gives us an advantage when it comes to investing in the supports and services that matter to Canadians.
Canadians are strong and resourceful, and in times of adversity, they expect a strong, resourceful response from their government. The measures I have mentioned are just some of the actions we have taken to protect and promote Canadian interests while positioning the country for future growth and prosperity.
Warren Steinley Conservative Regina—Lewvan, SK
Madam Speaker, we have heard this talking point over and over from the Liberals' side: There are world factors on the oil prices that are increasing diesel prices in Canada. However, Canada paid roughly 24¢ a litre more for diesel than Americans did last month and paid 31¢ more than the global average last month. If global conflicts are doing this, why are we paying 24¢ more than Americans and 31¢ more than the global average? It does not make any sense.
Juanita Nathan Liberal Pickering—Brooklin, ON
Madam Speaker, the reason we are speaking about this over and over is that we hear questions about diesel over and over during QP. I wanted to caution my colleague across the aisle that international comparisons on average diesel prices should be interpreted with caution. Diesel prices in many countries are influenced by government subsidies, administrative pricing regimes or other forms of state interventions. As a result, global averages that combine both market-based and non-market prices are not a like-for-like benchmark for assessing Canadian diesel prices. A more meaningful comparison—
Opposition Motion—Diesel PricesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
The hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Madam Speaker, again, right now, big oil in this country is posting record profits. It is looking to make over $50 billion in excess profit tax this year, but we never hear the Conservatives or the Liberals talk about that.
In Norway, they have a sovereign wealth fund. I would not call it a tax. They took part of those finite resources and invested them. They have over $1.7 trillion U.S. right now, earning over $200 billion a year, that can help people in Norway alleviate pressures in situations like this. They can provide relief for their citizens. They can invest in clean energy. They can do their part.
In this place, what is the threshold? How much money will it take for the Liberals to bring in an excess profit tax on these big oil and gas companies?
Juanita Nathan Liberal Pickering—Brooklin, ON
Madam Speaker, as Canada continues to build a stronger, more resilient and more independent economy, the government is taking practical steps to reduce costs today while investing in long-term prosperity. We are extending the fuel tax relief on one of the measures, helping families, workers and businesses navigate the global economic uncertainty.
The sovereign fund we have created will be invested where people can benefit from the interest on it and make money.
With respect to the question my colleague is asking, I have no answer at this point.
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, with respect to the Conservative member's question, I wish they would take a look at Germany and the United Kingdom. They could take a look at the G7 countries and then maybe come back and pose a question.
The member for Pickering—Brooklin has often advocated for affordability. I know she has a lot more that she would like to share with the House on the issue of affordability. It is a holistic approach that the Government of Canada is taking to try to support Canadians. The gas levy tax is one of the measures.
Juanita Nathan Liberal Pickering—Brooklin, ON
Madam Speaker, as I said before, as our government makes these large-scale structural transformations to create a stronger, more resilient Canadian economy, we are also taking more immediate actions to make life more affordable for Canadians.
There are a few measures that we have taken since this new government formed in 2025. One of them is cancelling the federal consumer carbon tax, which was effective on April 1 and has directly helped Canadians save money at the pump. We have cut taxes for 22 million people, as I have already mentioned, by lowering the first marginal personal income tax rate from 15% to 14%. We have eliminated the goods and services tax for first-time homebuyers on new homes up to $1 million. We have reduced the—
Opposition Motion—Diesel PricesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
We have to resume debate.
The hon. member for Regina—Lewvan.
Warren Steinley Conservative Regina—Lewvan, SK
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague from Tobique—Mactaquac. It is a pleasure to share my time with him. He always gives great speeches, so I hope to live up to one of his good speeches as well.
It is so interesting that we are talking about this motion. I am going to read out the motion so that all of the viewers around Canada know what we are talking about.
It is our Conservative opposition motion that:
the House, in the interest of saving Canadians money and fuelling our country at home, call on the government to adopt the Emergency Fuel Relief Plan that:
(a) provides for emergency pre-permitting and tax relief for the construction of diesel infrastructure, such as refineries, pipelines, rail and storage;
(b) eliminates all taxes on diesel consumption until at least Canada Day; and
(c) permanently eliminates taxes on diesel production; and
call on the government to set the goal of boosting Canadian diesel production to one million barrels per day, allowing every Canadian business and consumer access to Canadian diesel.
I am not sure how everyone in the House could not get behind a motion like this. We know affordability is an issue from coast to coast. I believe there are not any Liberal members of Parliament, or Conservative or Bloc members of Parliament, who do not hear about affordability every day, because I hear about it in my riding in Regina—Lewvan.
We all know that if we tax the farmer who plants the food, the truck that delivers the food and the grocery stores that sell the food, we tax the consumer who buys the food. We have said this many times in the House, and the Liberals are slowly dragging their feet to get to where we have been for years and years in trying to save Canadians money.
First of all, the previous member, who is a new member, just got up and said they got rid of the consumer carbon tax. We have been talking about that on this side for a decade, and now the Liberals want to take credit for getting rid of the consumer carbon tax. It was their flagship program. Justin Trudeau could not say enough good things about how if we taxed people, the climate would change. How idiotic is it that? Are they kidding me? If people pay more in taxes, we are going to have better weather.
Now, each and every one of those Liberals gets up, beats their chest and pretends getting rid of the consumer carbon tax is their idea. It is hogwash. They got dragged, kicking and screaming, and got rid of that consumer carbon tax. It was unpopular, it never worked in the first place and it was taking Canadians' money out of their pockets each and every day. The Liberals said they were going to rebate it back, and we proved through the PBO that the rebates never covered how much Canadians were paying in the first place, so I will take no lessons from a Liberal saying they scrapped the carbon tax, when we fought for that in this very chamber for 10 years.
I remember the former health minister, Mark Holland, in one of his epic rants during question period, talking about a family holiday in a car. He went over the top and said, “let the planet burn.” Mark Holland was very good at being over the top in question period. He thought they needed that carbon tax so badly or the world would burn.
Now the member for Winnipeg North jumps up like Skippy and says they got rid of the carbon tax. He voted in favour of the carbon tax dozens and dozens of times and went back to the good people in Winnipeg. I am not a Blue Bombers fan, but there are some good people in Winnipeg. The member said they needed to pay the carbon tax to make sure that the climate gets better, and now, with the flip of a switch, he goes back and says to the good people of Winnipeg he got rid of the carbon tax for them, they never needed it and it was costing them way too much money. How does he go back and flip that fast on a policy that was the flagship for Justin Trudeau and all of his climate crusaders?
I remember all of the climate crusaders, and there are still a bunch in the front row, saying we needed this carbon tax. Now we are having the exact same debate on the industrial carbon tax, the GST and all of the taxes on diesel fuel. They want to scrap them. They want to get credit now. We said to scrap the tax on diesel fuel months ago and years ago, and now they want to once again jump up and beat their chests, saying they are going to scrap the tax on diesel fuel until January 2027 like it is a novel idea. They are going to say they are heroes. This is not to mention that they are the ones who put the taxes in in the first place. They want to be heroes.
The Liberals are going to go to their ridings and say they are going to scrap this tax until January 2027, and Canadians should thank them. Never mind that they were the ones to put the tax on them in the first place. Never mind that they were the ones who drove up the cost of food and everything farmers need to grow food. That was all them, but now Canadians should think they are heroes because they are going to scrap the tax they implemented in the first place. How hypocritical. They have literally taken good idea after good idea.
The housing minister jumps up in question period and says they are going to take the GST off new homes. Where do the Liberals think they got that idea? It was from the Conservative platform in 2025, except that, once again, they have not gone far enough. They did a half measure, just as they are doing with the tax rebate on diesel. They are going halfway again because they just do not have, I would say, the ability to tell Canadians the truth and say they made a mistake. They should have done that with the carbon tax. Instead of beating their chests, they should have told Canadians they were sorry, they got it wrong and the carbon tax is a stupid policy, and apologized for foisting it upon the Canadian population for 10 years.
If they had any credibility with their constituents, they would go back to their ridings this Thanksgiving and say they got it wrong and they never should have put taxes on diesel fuel, because it costs Canadians more money to purchase what gets trucked in this country, which is almost everything.
The people in northern Saskatchewan should be the maddest at their members of Parliament, because everything in northern Saskatchewan gets trucked there. They truck in food and milk. Why does milk cost so much more in northern Saskatchewan? It is because it gets trucked so far, and the people there are paying the price of the Liberal government's taxes on diesel fuel each and every day. They know that. I think those members are going to get a bit of a surprise when they go home for Thanksgiving.
Speaking about Thanksgiving, the member for Whitby gave an average speech. It was from 2024, I believe. He talked about lowering grocery prices. This is the exact same thing the Minister of Finance, then the minister of industry, committed to in 2024. He said grocery prices were going to drop by 2024. He brought in all of the CEOs of the big grocery companies, made a big to-do, had a wonderful photo op, which is the thing the government can do best, and said he was going to make sure that grocery prices drop. I asked the member for Whitby how much lower grocery prices are now after that photo op, and he never answered the question. He never said a word about grocery prices in Canada being the highest in the G7 again, because the Liberals did not fulfill any of those commitments.
The most frustrating thing as I sit here each and every day is listening to outrageous Liberal speeches. They beat their chests and say they will take no lessons from the Conservatives. I am not going to take lessons from a government that put 2.2 million people in the food bank line. They never talk about that. I am not going to take lessons from a Liberal government that says it is going to help parents feed their kids. Why can parents not feed their kids? It is because the Liberals have taxed them to death. That is why they cannot afford groceries. The Liberals taxed the diesel that gets the groceries to the grocery stores. That is why parents cannot feed their kids.
The Liberals jump up each and every day, talking about a school food program and a groceries benefit. The Liberal government is proud that it makes 12 million people use food stamps because they do not have good jobs. They cannot afford groceries because of the policies the Liberal government has put in place for the last 10 years. The Liberals should be ashamed that they have to give food stamps to Canadians, not brag about it each and every question period. If that was my record in government, I would be embarrassed to stand up and talk about a program because Canadians cannot afford food under my watch. Those are the policies each and every one of these Liberals put in place, and now they are bragging about Canadians needing to use food stamps to feed their families and kids.
On this side, the Conservatives are going to work as hard as we can to save Canadians money and put more money back into their pockets so that they can feed their families and get good-paying jobs. That is what this motion is about. It is about getting diesel production and good jobs back in our country so that families can afford to feed themselves and not have to rely on the government.
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, those were interesting comments, that is for sure.
There was a time when the Conservatives were in favour of a carbon tax, and then they were against the carbon tax. Then Erin O'Toole put the Conservatives back in favour of the carbon tax. Their most recent leader is the one who has said the Conservatives are against the carbon tax.
Canada elected a brand new Prime Minister, and what was his first action? It was to get rid of the carbon tax. I, for one, am glad the Prime Minister got rid of the carbon tax.
We can take a look at the Conservative idea farm, if we want to call it that. Wab Kinew, Premier of Manitoba, gave Manitobans a break on the excise tax on gasoline. Did the NDP in Manitoba steal the Conservative idea? Maybe if there are good ideas out there, our Prime Minister and this government are not shy to look at them and put them in place because they will help Canadians. Is that not what all this should be about?
Warren Steinley Conservative Regina—Lewvan, SK
Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister is definitely not new, because he was the economic adviser to Justin Trudeau, who started the downfall of the economy in the first place.
For the Liberals to say that they are taking good ideas, that would be a novel idea. I would like them to steal more of our ideas. I would like the Liberal government to steal more good Conservative policies and just implement them properly. They always do half measures. The GST rebate is on new houses, but why not on all houses? On the rebate on diesel that they are talking about with Bill C-38, why not do it for longer and save people more money?
There is nothing new about the Prime Minister. He is following the terrible policies of Justin Trudeau that he helped implement, and he is making life less affordable for all Canadians each and every day.
Jeremy Patzer Conservative Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK
Madam Speaker, I really appreciated my colleague's speech. One thing we both do is represent Saskatchewan and people who live in rural areas. A lot of people from rural communities drive into the city of Regina, and they support the rural economy that exists in Saskatchewan.
Could the member explain to the Liberal government, and particularly the member for Winnipeg North, how important it is to pass this motion to support the rural economy in Saskatchewan?
Warren Steinley Conservative Regina—Lewvan, SK
Madam Speaker, I just got off the phone with a friend of mine who lives in Regina—Lewvan and has a farm. We talked about fuel costs. He said that he paid $10 an acre for fuel costs last year, and this year he is paying $20 an acre for fuel costs. His fuel bill on his farm this year is going to be $400,000.
I would love for a Liberal to try to explain to me how the price of fuel, when it is being doubled for our farmers across the country, does not affect the price of food at the grocery store.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Speaker, in another aspect of the member's speech, he downplayed the importance of the national school food program. I was first elected in 1988 when Sharon Carstairs was the leader of the Liberal Party in Manitoba. She advocated that a child cannot learn on an empty stomach. For generations, there have been many children in society who have not been able to learn on a full stomach or who have not had food in their tummy during the school day. The need is very real. It is there. It has been there for decades. However, the Conservatives are saying that they do not care about that aspect of education, that those children do not deserve to have food in their tummy when it comes to education.
To try to give the false impression that this issue has only been generated in the last 10 or 15 years is just wrong. Will the member admit he is wrong and maybe reverse the Conservative policy?
Warren Steinley Conservative Regina—Lewvan, SK
Madam Speaker, here comes the lie of the left that we do not care. There were many school food programs across Regina and across the country, some brought in by Mosaic and private companies that helped do this. There was Chili for Children in Regina. I could go on and on.
The one thing the Liberals have never realized is that there were people doing this good work. There were private companies that stepped up to make sure kids were fed, but the Liberals wanted to come in on their white horses and say, “No, the government can look after kids better.” Parents wanted to feed their own kids, and when that could not happen, there were private companies doing it. The Liberal government took that away, and it should be ashamed.
Opposition Motion—Diesel PricesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Conservative
Richard Bragdon Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the people's House and share some thoughts on the motion that we brought forward and are asking this House to consider, which is our plan for emergency relief for all Canadians, in particular those who are feeling the effects, Canadians from coast to coast to coast, of the devastating hike in fuel costs and the cost of diesel and all types of fuels.
Sometimes what happens is there is a disconnect, which people pick up on from coast to coast, between those in this House and people's lived reality back home. Their concern is whether anyone here in Ottawa, in the nation's capital, is really listening to them and what they are going through. I want to tell members how real this is. It is hitting home for Canadians from coast to coast, and it is important that government responds with the urgency the situation demands.
First off, here are some relevant statistics for us to consider: 5.6% of Canadian households are considered energy poor, 12% of Atlantic Canadian households, on average, are energy poor, and what New Brunswick is spending on gasoline has increased 85% between the years 2021 and 2023. Can members imagine how much it is going up again right now under current prices? My province of New Brunswick has the largest increase in Canada.
Of New Brunswick families, 22% have experienced food insecurity. In Newfoundland and Labrador, it is 23%. In Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, it is 21%. A week's worth of diesel on a lobster boat or crab vessel can now cost upward of $6,000. That is coming right out of the back pockets of the producers and fish harvesters on our waters. Our current prices are affecting some of the large farms, which are having to spend as much as $5,000 per day in fuel costs alone. There is no way those costs are not going to be transmitted back to every Canadian from coast to coast through the increased cost of food and groceries on the shelf. Why is that? It is because input costs are soaring.
Our plan is a practical plan that addresses one of the root causes of the soaring costs and prices, which is the cost of fuel. Diesel fuel affects every Canadian who buys, purchases and receives the goods off our shelves that are trucked or shipped. In Atlantic Canada, everything we get on our shelves, as in most of Canada, has arrived by means of transport. Thankfully, we have great transport drivers and an amazing transportation sector, but their costs are going through the roof. If it comes by ship, those costs are only going up. We have to address this, and we have laid out a concrete plan to do so.
What does our plan do? It provides for emergency prepermitting and tax relief for the construction of diesel infrastructure, such as refineries, pipelines, rail and storage. It also eliminates all taxes on diesel consumption until at least Canada Day of next year, 2027. It permanently eliminates taxes on diesel production, and it calls on the government to set the goal of boosting Canadian diesel production to one million barrels per day. These are practical steps that the government can take right away that would provide immediate relief for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
I could not help but be drawn to a story as I was reflecting on and preparing for the remarks I would give today. It is an ancient story of a wise young man who was put in a position of great responsibility.
This young man was entrusted with coming up with a plan. How did he get that position for the nation that he was second in command over? It was because the ruler at that time was facing a great dilemma. He was disturbed by some things that he was seeing and sensing, but he did not know the path forward and was seeking wisdom and insight. He brought in all the normal people he would confer and consult with. They would just further diagnose, leave perplexed and really not provide clarity, certainty or practical answers for this ruler's dilemma. There was a young man named Joseph who had amazing insight into the dilemma they were facing. In fact, he understood and was able to interpret the instinct and feeling the ruler had.
What was that? He said that they were in a time of great blessing and great favour, that they were having bountiful crops, that their GDP was tremendous and that they were producing great wealth. He said they needed to, for the next seven years, take a portion of that and set it aside and plan for the future perils they were going to face, because it looked like, from what he was understanding, there would be seven years of prosperity followed by seven years of famine. He said they had to understand and enact the principle of using their years of favour and years of plenty to set aside some wealth so they could combat the years of famine and years of peril.
I cannot help but think of a tremendous parallel to where we are today. The country has been blessed with amazing resources and incredible goods under our feet, in our soil, on our lands and in our people, yet we have not properly allocated those resources, properly unleashed and utilized those resources, and planned for the future out of those resources. In fact, we have done the opposite. For 10 or 11 years straight, we talked about dirty oil, dirty gas and keeping it in the ground, and said we were going to burn the planet, we were not going to utilize it, we were going to shut it down and we were getting away from it. Instead of using what could bring us the most wealth and potential and prepare us for the headwinds that we are currently facing, we shut it down, turned it off and spoke ill of it.
Now that we are in the time of peril, challenge and uncertainty, we have instant fans of oil and gas on the other side. That is wonderful. I am thankful for the backflip to reality and the inverted suplex of policy. I think it is wonderful that they have seen the light and are now going to say that we need pipelines, that we need to develop oil and gas and that they are champions of energy from coast to coast. It is refreshing and it is wonderful, and I am thrilled and enthralled at the enlightenment that has come, but Canadians also recognize that it is the same government that has had this opportunity since 2015 and chose the exact opposite approach. Instead of storing up in the years of plenty, the Liberals spent the cupboards bare, rammed up debt and increased our deficits at astronomical rates.
Now, after the fact, 11 or 12 years later, they are stepping in and saying that we have to do this, but there are still no real shovels in the ground. There are lots of grand proclamations and many great announcements about many projects. In fact, I think that no less than 500 have been announced, but I do not believe there has yet been one approval of the 500 that have been announced. I think Canadians are saying that we need action and need it now and we need relief now. As much as the announcement sounds great, we have to move beyond the announcement and beyond the diagnosis and somehow get to a place of practical solutions and real relief for our people.
The lesson that we hear from Joseph and this wonderful story is to use the years of plenty to fight the years of peril. We must plan now for the times when we are going to be under duress, release the potential that is within our own economy and get off the backs of our own people so they can do what they do best, which is work, produce, innovate, grow, dream and develop. We must stop standing in their way and release the pressure that is on their backs. When we do that, we unleash the potential that is Canada.
The time for action is now, and the Liberals can take that wonderful first step. They have already inverted themselves beautifully, saying that they are for oil and gas and the development of those resources. Let us take that to the next step and provide real tax relief on the fuels that Canadians consume by supporting our motion.
Serge Cormier Liberal Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Madam Speaker, when I was listening to my colleague from New Brunswick, he said that he wants to help his constituents and wants to help New Brunswickers, but he also said that families are experiencing food insecurity. He voted against the school food program. He voted against the groceries and essentials benefit. He voted against the Canada child benefit.
Imagine saying that families are experiencing some difficulty and then voting against all those programs. Every time it was time to help New Brunswickers and his constituents, he voted against. He talks about the crab fishermen and lobster fishermen in my riding. He voted against the Atlantic fisheries fund, the top-up for small craft harbours and the $1 billion that we just announced. He voted against everything. What is he going to vote against the next time?