Debates of April 14th, 2026

Opposition Motion—Fuel Taxes

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am puzzled by the Conservative party's calculations, particularly in today's motion. For example, the Conservative Party claims that we would save seven cents per litre when it comes to the clean fuel standard, which they want to eliminate. This is based on an estimate by the Parliamentary Budget Officer from some time ago, in which he compared the cost of biofuels to that of oil.

However, since then, we have seen a sharp rise in oil prices. The price of oil has risen and is now on par with that of biofuels. If this measure were abolished tomorrow morning, the seven-cent-per-litre reduction would no longer apply; it would actually be zero cents per litre. Why would they not be more thorough in their calculations when moving motions in the House?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the estimate of seven cents a litre does not just come from the Parliamentary Budget Officer; it also comes from the government itself. According to a report released by Environment and Climate Change Canada, the government regulations that are increasing the price of gas by seven cents a litre this year will increase it by 17¢ a litre by 2030. This is a tax. When the government imposes a fee at the pump and forces people to pay it, that is a tax.

By eliminating this tax, the government could lower the price at the pump by seven cents a litre. On top of that, we want to get rid of the GST, which would mean a further reduction of seven or eight cents a litre, depending on the day. Finally, we are proposing to eliminate the 10¢-a-litre excise tax on gasoline. That is how the Conservatives are proposing to bring down gas prices by about 25¢ a litre for every Canadian family.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today the Prime Minister succumbed to Conservative pressure. I would like to congratulate my colleague for all of his hard work. Today, because of him, Canadians are saving money at the pumps.

The Prime Minister has cut half of the taxes until Labour Day. How important is it that the Prime Minister cut all fuel taxes for the rest of the year?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that the Prime Minister and the Liberals would not have done anything were it not for the leadership of the Conservatives in fighting for affordability. It is true that imitation is the highest form of flattery. Our only concern is that the Prime Minister only goes halfway for only half the time and ultimately goes back to his old ways. The Prime Minister favours a high-tax, big-government costly agenda. He always reverts to that in the long run. Everything else is an illusion.

As Conservatives, we are the only ones who will eliminate these taxes completely. We are the only ones who will eliminate the entire carbon tax for everyone, for real, for good and forever. We are the only ones who will eliminate the inflation tax by cutting back on the outrageous overspending. We are the only ones who will unblock our resources and allow Canada to become a true energy powerhouse. Conservatives are the real deal, not an imitation.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to our opposition day motion to remove federal taxes on gas and diesel for the rest of 2026. All members have just returned from time spent in their ridings and I can share, just as I am sure many others can, that the number one concern I am hearing from constituents is the high cost of living.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, which currently has one of the highest gas prices of any province in Canada, we are seeing the effects of these rising costs in ways we simply have not seen before. I speak with passion on this issue because of the incredibly difficult stories that I hear and that my staff hear regularly from the people that I represent. These are stories of families being stretched to their limits and facing choices no one should ever have to make. As a mom of four myself, someone who has worked really hard my entire life to stay and live and work in the province that I love, I can relate to these stories and situations.

Canadians are being squeezed at every turn. They are paying more to drive to work, heat their homes and put food on the table. At the same time, the Liberal government is taking more from them with every litre of fuel that they pump and put into their vehicles. Canadians are doing everything right, working hard, budgeting carefully and cutting back where they can, but they are still falling behind.

To begin, let us be clear about what is happening. As global oil prices rise, the government is seeing billions more in revenue, while Canadians are feeling the pressure of higher costs at the pumps. Rising prices are increasing government revenues at a time when Canadians are struggling to keep up. The most recent response from the Liberal Prime Minister is acknowledging that Conservatives have the solution for Canadians but delivering only a temporary measure that is not going to provide lasting, meaningful relief. Their announcement only affects a third of the taxes on fuel they collect for a third of the year. It minimizes the seriousness of what Canadians are facing. We need a Prime Minister who acts in the same measure that Canadians are feeling this pressure. They need meaningful, long-lasting relief. That is why Conservatives are putting forward a long-lasting, meaningful solution: Suspend the federal taxes on gasoline and diesel for the rest of 2026, permanently remove the fuel standard tax and permanently remove the industrial carbon tax.

Conservatives are proposing the motion. A top Liberal economic adviser pointed out that every $10 increase in the price of oil generates roughly $2 billion in additional revenue. Oil prices are now roughly $45 to $50 higher than the pre-crisis baseline. This means that the Liberal government stands to collect close to $9 billion or even $10 billion in extra revenue, money it did not budget for, money the government currently stands to collect just because prices are high. In exchange, the Liberals only want Canadians to save 10¢ per litre and four cents on diesel. Our motion would save Canadians 25¢ per litre on gas and 21¢ on diesel.

This is not real relief. Canadians are paying 35% more due to rising global oil prices, forcing Canadians to pay almost, and this is an important point, 20% more than Americans. Conservatives recognize the tough situation Canadians are facing. Instead of holding on to that windfall, we are proposing a meaningful approach to suspend federal fuel taxes for the rest of 2026 and permanently eliminate the clean fuel standard and the industrial carbon tax, which is projected to shrink the economy by 1.3% and lead to 50,000 job losses for hard-working Canadians.

That is a real, tangible solution that creates real savings. Once again, this would mean saving 25¢ per litre on gasoline and 21¢ per litre on diesel.

While in my riding, I recently spent several days travelling with my nine-year-old twins, Emma and William, to their provincial hockey tournaments. Like so many families across Newfoundland and Labrador, especially during Easter tournament season, this is a very important part of our lives. We travel long distances across our vast province to support our children and cheer them on, but these punishing fuel prices are making it harder for families to take part in those moments at a time when many are already stretched thin.

One tournament meant driving from Deer Lake to Glovertown and back, approximately 600 kilometres, and another from Deer Lake to Clarenville, roughly 860 kilometres. Altogether, that is nearly 1,500 kilometres on the road just to be there for our kids.

However, there is a tougher reality, outside of our kids' hockey tournaments, in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. People do not have the luxury of public transit. They drive long distances to get to work, to get groceries and to access basic services like health care, often travelling these vast distances to see a specialist or to access the only children's hospital. Truckers rely on fuel to deliver goods to our communities. Small businesses rely on fuel to move goods across long distances. Families rely on fuel just to get through the week.

In addition, we rely on fuel to enjoy the back country on our snowmobiles and ATVs or to access to our cabins. Many cabin owners in the area where I live travel every single weekend to ice fish, pick their berries, cut their firewood, go moose hunting and enjoy the company of their cabin neighbours and friends. Owners of small business operations rely on those activities to sustain them and when fuel prices increase, these businesses are at risk, not to mention our rural way of life. Therefore, when the cost of fuel rises, it hits every single part of life in Long Range Mountains, in Newfoundland and Labrador and all across Canada. As one of my constituents told me, let us get rid of all of the taxes on gas. People cannot afford these hikes. It makes everything else more expensive, for example food. This is the reality people are living every single day.

Across Newfoundland and Labrador, increased diesel prices that drive up the cost of shipping are so prevalent because, on an island, so much of our food, goods and services must be brought in mostly by tractor-trailer. That means that higher fuel costs translate directly into higher prices on store shelves. Single parents in my province are reaching out for help because their budgets are completely stretched. Soaring gas prices are adding a new level of stress to these families.

People at the Single Parent Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, based in St. John's, have said that these rising costs can mean the difference between putting food on the table and heating a home. People are already seeing the impact. The association reported that almost 30 additional families have turned to it for support so far this year. All of these families had never had to ask for help before, and many are working professionals. Some are working two or even three jobs and still they cannot make ends meet. Almost 70% of those receiving food support from the association's food bank are children under the age of 17. That is the human cost of rising fuel prices. The association's executive member also reported that they have been staying in touch with government in the hopes that there will soon be relief. My message to them is that Conservatives are fighting with them on this issue, not just for temporary relief, but for long-lasting, meaningful relief.

We know that when gas prices go up, everything goes up. Groceries become more expensive because transport costs rise. Heating costs go up and for families in western Newfoundland who still rely on home heating fuel, those increases hit especially hard. Having spent my career in real estate, I can say that in many rural areas across our province, a significant number of households still depend on home heating fuel. Many of those residents are seniors living on fixed incomes with older properties in need of repairs and upgrades and this is an added cost that they cannot afford. Construction costs go up. Small business owners face higher input costs, higher delivery costs and higher operating costs. Suppliers add fuel surcharges. Local business owners are forced to pass on costs or cut back.

We are seeing the same kind of leadership at home in Newfoundland and Labrador where the provincial government has taken action to permanently reduce the provincial tax on gasoline and diesel. That is what it looks like to recognize the pressure that people are under, with real relief. Here in Canada, the Liberals are doing the opposite. They are offering a temporary measure that is not going to provide the real relief that Canadians need. If the Liberal government is going to collect billions of dollars in unexpected revenue because of higher oil prices, the least it can do is return half of that money to fund real relief for the people who are paying it.

Canadians are already doing everything that they can do to manage rising costs. They are cutting back, delaying purchases and making sacrifices. The question is whether the Liberal government is prepared to do something about it. We are offering a clear choice, immediate meaningful relief at the pump, and a plan that puts Canadians first and gives Canadians a break.

The Prime Minister has already confirmed that Conservatives have the solutions for Canadians, but instead of only delivering a third of the taxes, I urge all members of this House to support this motion, stand with Canadian families, workers and small business owners, give them the relief they deserve and support our motion.

[Buckley Belanger, Liberal, Secretary of State (Rural Development)]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member with respect to some of the points she and her leader have raised. This is a most serious matter as the whole world is struggling with high oil prices, not just Canada. We are not immune to that.

I would ask the member this: Can Conservative MPs predict oil prices over the next six to 12 months? Do any Conservative MPs have the ability to stop the war in Libya? These confound and certainly concern all Canadians as we struggle with high oil prices. There are real external factors in relation to those matters. It is a serious discussion.

Can the member answer this question: Can she stop the war in Libya, which is exposing Canadians to high oil prices across the country and throughout the world?

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, I cannot stop any war, which is exactly why this proposal is so important. We are proposing that the Government of Canada, the Liberal government, do what it can in the face of what is happening right now and what Canadian families are facing. This is a meaningful measure that could reduce prices by 21¢ per litre on diesel and 25¢ on gas.

We know we do not have control over other countries and the other things that are happening. What we do have control over is how we can put more money back into the pockets of Canadians. That is exactly what we are proposing.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the Conservatives are saying, eliminating the industrial carbon tax would have no impact on prices at the pump. Prices are based on the global price per barrel, not on extraction costs. Basically, the Conservative measure would be nothing more than a gift to the oil companies and it would have no impact on oil prices.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I sit on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. The industrial carbon tax is something we are studying right now. We have heard numerous reports that it does nothing, simply because of carbon leakage. That means that, instead of these producers investing in our economy, they go into other countries that do not enforce an industrial carbon tax, so it has an impact on the overall economy.

In addition to that, we know that, when we tax fertilizer and farm equipment, it eventually makes its way to the grocery store shelves and contributes to the increased cost of living for Canadians. That is what Conservatives are fighting.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I appreciate about my colleague's speeches is that she always brings things back down to basics in a way that is very relatable. Certainly, the things she spoke about are very relatable to my own riding.

The government opposite keeps trying to look to external factors. I wonder if the hon. member would speak to the difference between the impact these higher prices have on the prices that consumers pay compared to the revenues of the government and tie that back to what we are talking about today.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the government stands to collect $9 billion to $10 billion in revenue. We are asking for half of that to go back into the pockets of Canadians. What does that mean? It means that they would have more money for groceries, to attend their kids' events, to put back into local economies, to support local businesses and to make trips to their cabins. This is a real and tangible measure.

There is also a tax on gas, which impacts everything, especially in Newfoundland and Labrador and rural Canada. This is a meaningful measure, which is exactly why Conservatives are proposing it.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be here this afternoon. I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Kingston and the Islands. I am thankful for the opportunity to warm up the crowd before he knocks it out of the park.

I will start my remarks by thanking the people of Terrebonne, the people of Scarborough Southwest and the people of University–Rosedale for electing three strong, powerful women, Liberal candidates, to the House. I look forward to welcoming those members to the House and seeing our Prime Minister and the leader of the official opposition drag those members into Parliament to take their seats in the people's House. It is a great day in Parliament for Liberals as we note that the public has shown confidence once again in our leader.

I appreciate the opportunity to participate in today's debate and to highlight the many announcements that our government is making to address the affordability challenges that we know Canadians are struggling with.

It is clear that the current impact of military conflicts on global refinery capacity and fuel transport systems means Canadians and consumers around the world are facing higher prices at the pump, which is creating uncertainty and pressure on household finances. This is exacerbated by a number of crises that have happened over the last few years that we all, I am sure, would like to forget, and that have shocked our economy and made it challenging for families. We all acknowledge that.

I am also pleased to say that we are taking further action to help Canadians manage these challenges, as announced earlier today by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance. The Prime Minister made it very clear that Canada's government will use the improvement in the fiscal outlook associated with higher oil prices to provide targeted relief to households and businesses.

Specifically, we are reducing pressure on fuel prices at the pump by suspending the application of the federal fuel excise tax on gasoline and diesel, effective next week and lasting until Labour Day, September 7, delivering over $2.3 billion in relief. This temporary suspension of excise taxes for gasoline and diesel is expected to save the average Canadian filling up a 50-litre tank of fuel $5.75 on regular gasoline and up to $2.30 on diesel.

This builds on one of the very first actions we took as a government, which we have talked about numerous times in the House. We lowered costs at the pump in most provinces and territories. Members opposite will remember their pleas to cancel the consumer fuel charge, and we did so with great ease. Canadians will save money on the price at the pump in provinces and territories. Our government also removed the requirement for provinces and territories to have a consumer-facing carbon price as of April 1, 2025.

At the same time, our government understands that Canadians do not spend money just on gas, which is why we have been taking action to reduce other pressures on their household costs right across the board, including, for example, a recent announcement we made introducing the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, which builds on the former GST credit. We are increasing its amount by 25% for five years as of July 2026.

In addition to that, we are providing a one-time payment, as early as possible this spring, equivalent to a 50% increase in the year 2025-26. That is a significant increase to the annual value of what was known as the GST credit. Combined, this means families of four will receive up to $1,890 this year and about $1,400 for the next four years. A single person will receive up to $950 this year and about $700 a year for the next four years. That is literally making life more affordable for millions and millions of Canadians. In fact, the Canada groceries and essentials benefit will provide additional support for more than 12 million Canadians.

We are not only putting more money in the pockets of those who need it most, but also leaving more money in their pockets with our middle-class tax cut. We have lowered the first marginal personal income tax rate by 1%, from 15% to 14%, since July 1, 2025. That impacts 22 million Canadians. It saves the average person $420 a year and two-income families $840 a year. This rate reduction applies to taxable income of up to $58,523 in 2026, providing meaningful relief to middle-class Canadians during the current period of economic uncertainty.

This is coupled with a number of other affordability measures that our government has moved forward on, one of which I am very proud of, and that is funding the national school food program to feed 400,000 more kids per year and ensuring that it continues in perpetuity by making that program permanent. We will continue to save families with two children $800 on their grocery bill over the course of a year. That is not insignificant. Members opposite mock this program. They have called it garbage and said a whole bunch of negative things to throw shade on the national school food program.

I had the opportunity, before my political career, to serve on the board of Food Secure Canada, which is an organization that works on food insecurity. A national school food program was its top ask of the federal government for many years. It is something I have advocated for regularly over the course of my time in Parliament. It is great to see that program get a federal investment of $200 million per year, matching the amounts that provinces and territories put in and ensuring that we get to feed 400,000 more kids who otherwise would not have food. It is appalling to me that the Conservatives did not support this program. That they mocked it and would not stand up for hungry children is just a sham.

I also want to mention that we have worked on affordability issues in the housing market. We recognize that many young Canadians are struggling to purchase their first home, and that is a travesty, absolutely. We need to make sure we are building more affordable housing supply, but we have also made it easier by putting measures in place to help young Canadians buy their first home.

We moved forward with the first-time homebuyers rebate. With this rebate, we have effectively eliminated GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes up to $1 million and reduced the GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes between $1 million and $1.5 million. That tax cut, in addition to the others I have mentioned, saves families a lot of money on the purchase of their first home, up to $50,000 on their first home under $1 million. That allows young Canadian families to enter the housing market, making the goal of home ownership a reality for young families. That $50,000 is not an insignificant support, and that is in addition to reducing mortgage insurance, allowing tax-free savings accounts for young families to save for the purchase of their first home and a whole package of other measures that are focused on increasing the housing supply in Canada.

We also moved forward recently with taking action on putting a cap on insufficient funds fees, making banking more fair for average consumers across Canada. Those fees are relatively small, but capping them to $10 is a significant improvement that will save some of our most vulnerable people in Canada a considerable amount of money.

The bottom line is to support Canadians through the current global energy market disruptions. Our government is delivering timely, meaningful and tangible relief for Canadians at a time when they need it most. We are doing so across a wide range of fronts and many categories of the household budget. Our announcement today that we are suspending the federal excise tax on gasoline and diesel is just the last of many concrete steps that we are taking to support Canadians through these challenging periods and positioning them for long-term success by building the strongest economy in the G7.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today's announcement amounts to approximately four cents on the price of diesel. Diesel runs the trucks that deliver food everywhere. Diesel runs just about everything on Canadian farms and helps get food and other goods to communities like mine.

Given the magnitude of the windfall that the government is experiencing as a result of the increase in revenues that come from gas taxes under the current circumstances, how can the government justify not giving every single penny of that windfall back to Canadians at this time?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to answer this question. What the Conservatives usually do, as we see in the House, is this kind of “back of the napkin” math. They did not really look at exactly how much revenue is going to be generated through additional taxes, in this particular case. They are forecasting a lot more that they think is going to come in but that has not come in yet. They are not able to predict the global energy markets. They do not know that the federal government is going to have the amount of money they are projecting.

In fact, we are doing exactly what we should be doing, which is offering a 10¢-per-litre break at the pump on gasoline for Canadians, using the $2.3 billion of collected tax revenue to offer direct support for Canadian families.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague across the way.

He is boasting about his government's new policy, which was inspired by the Conservatives. It is, in fact, a direct response to what the Conservatives were calling for. It appears that some Conservatives are quite inspired by the Liberals too, as more and more of them are switching to the Liberal Party.

That being said, the government's decision to reduce the fuel excise tax by 10¢ could have a positive impact on the finances of people who use their gasoline-powered vehicles every day, given the sharp rise in gas prices. I am not sure that those 10¢ will make a huge difference. We all know that the increase was much higher than 10¢.

In that context, is the current rise in gas prices actually not a clear illustration of our dependence on fossil fuels, which we need to break free from and address more urgently instead of making short-term decisions, the way the government is now, that ultimately will not really change anything?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member opposite knows that this government is working to make Canadians less reliant on fossil fuels in many ways. We are also supporting Canadians where they are at, which is struggling with affordability challenges and cost of living challenges at home. In their daily lives, they need to fill up at the pump. We are giving them a break right now, just as we introduced many other affordability measures to ease the burden on Canadian families. That is something we have been doing.

In my speech, I talked about the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, a tax cut for 22 million Canadians on income tax, waiving the GST on new home purchases, cancelling the federal consumer carbon tax, making the national school food program permanent, introducing automatic federal tax filings and benefits, lowering the costs and strengthening competition on essentials in Canada, which we did through three rounds of changes to the Competition Act, and the Canada child benefit and dental care. All of these things are addressing the cost of living challenges Canadians are struggling with.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it feels like Groundhog Day showing up here. We come here and hear the Liberals adopting Conservative policies, such as removing the carbon tax. The Conservatives said the sky was falling because of the carbon tax. Now it is the gas tax, or austerity, or the first-time homebuyer tax that my colleague talked about. That has not made housing more affordable.

What we see constantly with Liberals and Conservatives is that they are standing up for corporate greed and the corporate machine. Big oil, for example, is posting record profits right now.

What is the amount of record profits that big oil can charge before the Liberals or Conservatives will start implementing an excess profit tax so it pays its fair share?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member opposite's interventions in this House. He is a wonderful member, and we welcome collaboration with him at any moment.

What is great is that there is no real limitation on us taking good ideas that are generated by any party in the House and implementing those on behalf of Canadians. We have done that numerous times with proposals from multiple parties. We have seen that with the Canada dental care plan. Obviously the NDP was a big advocate for a national school food program as well. We worked seamlessly at times to further—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Resuming debate, the chief government whip.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to the motion the Conservatives have put forward. I want to speak to the content of the motion for a few minutes, and then I would like to talk a bit about some of the comments I heard from the Leader of the Opposition today, when he was speaking an hour or so ago.

I think it is important to reflect on something my colleague for Whitby basically said. Conservatives seem to have devised this plan and what we see in this motion on the back of a napkin. There was not a lot of thought put into it, in terms of actually trying to use data to determine what the best result would be, in line with what that additional income would be, with respect to the gas tax.

What the Prime Minister proposed today was something that is data driven, something that does actually look at the data. Rather than trying to predict what the price of gas and oil is going to be by the end of the year, which the Conservatives are trying to do, our approach is to say, “Let us take this on an incremental basis. Let us do this for four months, and then we can assess where we are at that point.” That is, I think, the data driven, realistic, pragmatic approach that should be taken.

I must admit that I got a bit of a kick out of it when I was sitting here today listening to the debate and Conservatives got up to say, “Well, you just stole our idea. That was our idea.” I would like to think we come here with ideas and try to put them forward to make the lives of Canadians better. Quite frankly, as far as I am concerned, if the Conservatives want to say this was their idea, they can have all the credit for it. At the end of the day, the most important thing is that we make the lives of Canadians better. If they can agree that this is going to do that, perhaps not as much as they would have liked or as much as they would have thought it should, I guess I should say, then that is an issue to discuss.

As the parliamentary secretary who spoke before me said, the government has done a lot to make life more affordable for Canadians, with a suite of different things that have been brought in throughout the weeks and months leading up to today. To name some of them, we introduced the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, and we cut taxes for 22 million Canadians pretty much on day one after this government was elected. We eliminated the GST for first-time homebuyers to help people who are renting and just about to purchase a house to get into the affordability of home ownership. We cancelled the federal consumer carbon tax, as was discussed. We made the national school food program permanent, introduced automatic federal benefits, and lowered costs and strengthened competition in essential services. We expanded and entrenched the Canada child benefit and lowered the costs of child care and kid essentials, including $10-a-day child care and interest-free student loans. We introduced the Canada dental plan, pharmacare, the $500 Canada housing benefit top-up for low-income renters, tax-free first home savings accounts and the Canada disability benefit. The list goes on and on.

Yes, these things have one thing in common. The commonality is that they are intended to make the lives of Canadians more affordable, to increase affordability. They also, unfortunately, have something else in common. The other thing that these things have in common is that the Conservatives voted against all of them. It becomes very difficult to accept the word of Conservatives when they come in here trying to suggest they are here to make the lives of Canadians better, when everything I just read off, they voted against.

I am in opposition to today's Conservative motion because I think the plan that the government laid out this morning is a much better approach to this.

I also want to touch on something that the Leader of the Opposition said this morning. I will be honest with you, Mr. Speaker; I would not have brought this up had he not said it in the House. He actually said it both in English and in French. I want to pre-empt my colleagues across the way from trying to call a point of order and saying I am not speaking to something that is going on. I assure you that I will be speaking to exactly what I heard the Leader of the Opposition say this morning in this debate.

He started off his speech by saying that the Prime Minister had cobbled together a majority, that there were “backroom deals”. He said politicians had “betrayed” their constituents. This was all in the discussion about members who are crossing the floor to this side. I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that there actually was a bill, Bill C-306, and that bill would have banned floor crossing. The Leader of the Opposition voted against it. He could have voted his conscience. As a matter of fact, the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman and the member for Airdrie—Cochrane did vote in favour of it. It was not a whipped vote on that side of the House back in the day. The Leader of the Opposition had the ability to vote to ban floor crossing. He did not do that.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, now his members are yelling, “Bring it back.” I thank those members for segueing perfectly into the next part of my point.

My point is this. It is not about the principle of the matter for the Leader of the Opposition. It is not about the principle that one should not cross the floor. It is about when that principle is convenient, and the principle is convenient for the Leader of the Opposition now because it serves his purpose, which is why his members are yelling, “Bring it back.” Yeah, sure, they want it now. They would love to vote on that now because it is convenient and it suits their purposes. The reality of the situation is that when the Leader of the Opposition had an opportunity to vote on Bill C-306, which would have banned floor crossing, he voted against it. I find it very rich that he would come in here this morning and accuse the Prime Minister of doing something that he voted to maintain.

By the way, it is something that is entrenched in Westminster democracy. I know the Speaker is personally very educated on Westminster democracy, the ins and the outs of it. He is being coy, in my opinion, but I believe he is.

The reality is that this has been going on for years. Our system, the institution of members being elected, is based on the principle that we elect individuals, individuals who belong to political parties. If we elect an individual who then uses their conscience, after 10 years of speaking in the House, like the member for Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, and they get up and say they think their principles line up better with another political party, then she or any member has the right to move around the room.

The Leader of the Opposition can try to say that is not the case. He can try to say it is backroom deals and everything else, but that is the reality of our Westminster parliamentary system, and it is why the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Battle River—Crowfoot, voted against Bill C-306 when he had the opportunity.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada released The Daily just yesterday about the income and wealth distribution of Canadians last year under the Liberal government. Here are the opening two sentences of that report: “The income gap increased in 2025 as lower income households were negatively affected by declining interest rates and weak growth in employment income. The wealth gap grew throughout 2025 as continued strong financial market gains benefited the wealthiest.”

Would the member comment on his government's economic performance?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not actually disagree with just about anything the member said. What I disagree with is his characterization that this is somehow unique to this government and unique to the last couple of years. If he wants to have an honest, open conversation about this, we should probably go back to Reagan economics back in the eighties when all of this began, because we have been seeing that growing divide between the haves and the have-nots since the eighties, since trickle-down economics. That is when this started. The member comes in here now and suddenly makes it seem like it is an issue that this government created, but that just is not true.

The reality is that he is right. We need a strong middle class. We need to do everything we can to ensure that middle class stays robust and healthy. This is why the government has been introducing many different policies over the years. I read them all off in my speech, which I am sure he heard. The unfortunate reality is that the member voted against all of those measures I read off.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I found the speech by my colleague opposite very interesting. My colleague laughed a bit about the Conservatives getting all worked up about floor crossers. He said that the Conservatives seem to have fairly flexible principles when it comes to floor crossers. I think he made a good point.

This brought up another thought, and I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about it. The Conservatives are flexible in their principles because they do not always seem to respect them when they need to put them into action. However, on the Liberal side, we see that, over the past few months, the government has flat-out eliminated the carbon tax. In fact, today the government is taking a Conservative stance on the issue of the fuel excise tax. The government is funding pipelines even though it said it wanted to make the energy transition happen. In addition, the government is continuing to subsidize oil companies, even though, in its own election platform, it promised to stop subsidizing oil companies.

What is more, the Liberals welcomed a floor crosser who, not so long ago, was opposed to banning conversion therapy, is reportedly against vaccines and is also against abortion. On the issue of principles, then, is the Liberals' problem essentially having—