Debates of April 14th, 2026

Opposition Motion—Fuel Taxes

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to my colleague. I know my colleague and I know that he is very involved in agriculture. However, one thing surprises me. Today, he had an opportunity to give all farmers a break, especially transporters and everyone who works hard so that food at the grocery store is a little less expensive. Unfortunately, the Liberals deliberately chose to keep the bulk of all gas taxes for themselves instead of giving it back to Canadians. This shows once again that this government does not trust people to manage their own money. If the Liberals had followed the Conservative solution in its entirety, they would have removed all gas taxes so that people would have the opportunity to choose what they want to do with that money to make ends meet.

Can my colleague explain to me why he ignored Canadians throughout his entire speech today?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, today the Prime Minister announced a four-month suspension of the federal fuel excise tax. This is, of course, related to the circumstances in Iran and the situation in the Middle East.

I am very proud of our plan for farmers across the country. With all due respect, when I reviewed the Conservative Party's election platform during the last election, I noticed that it contained no measures for farmers across the country, including in Quebec. I hope that my hon. colleague will raise that point with our hon. colleague from Battle River—Crowfoot to ensure that the Conservative Party has a stronger campaign platform.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the good people of Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna. I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Lethbridge.

Today's debate is an important one because it goes directly to the affordability crisis Canadians are living through. Often in this place, along with much of the media, we tend to focus on things we most disagree on. Today I will start with what I hope we can agree on: Canadians are struggling with the rising cost of living. They want practical solutions that lower costs now.

That brings me to fuel prices. In recent weeks, Canadians have seen sharp increases in the price of gasoline and diesel. Families felt it immediately, and so did farmers, truckers, tradespeople, small businesses and anyone who depends on transportation. Some will say that global events are to blame, and that may be true, but Canadians do not elect us to describe the problem and then do nothing. They elect us to find solutions.

This is why the Conservative official opposition has led the debate on gas prices and affordability. We are not shrugging our shoulders while Canadians struggle, nor have we simply named the problem, but we have proposed solutions.

What we are seeing, again and again, is that when Conservatives put forward solutions that work, reality catches up and the government is forced to change course. There is also a pattern Canadians can see clearly, which is the government consistently taking on only a fraction of the solution. On affordability, the Prime Minister removed the consumer carbon tax, but kept the industrial carbon tax and so-called clean fuel regulations, policies that continue to raise costs across the economy. On housing, instead of removing the GST completely to build supply, the government offered narrow measures that can increase demand without fixing the supply problem. On getting big projects built, the government asked for and received the support of the Conservatives to pass Bill C-5, but instead of designating and then streamlining these projects to get past the red tape, it has yet to designate a single project as a national interest project, as was named under the legislation.

All of these are half measures that may create some headlines but limit the real-world impact to Canadians.

That takes us to today's motion. The problem is clear: When costs surge due to higher fuel costs, the cost of everything rises, and when government adds layers of taxes and policy-driven costs on top of that surge, it makes a bad situation worse.

Now we have a new development. The Prime Minister announced that the federal government will temporarily suspend the federal fuel excise tax on gasoline and diesel starting next week and lasting through the summer, but only to 10¢ a litre. That confirms what Conservatives have been saying all along: Taxes at the pump matter and Canadians need relief.

Let me be clear: Canadians deserve relief. If the government finally takes a step in that direction, I think we should acknowledge it, but we will also point out what it has left on the table.

If someone were to ask my constituents a simple question, would they rather have a plan that delivers about 25¢ a litre of relief for the rest of this year or a plan that delivers about 10¢ a litre for a few months, especially when higher prices mean that Ottawa collects more GST and corporate tax revenue, most Canadians would know the answer right away. They would prefer our plan.

The question today before the House is whether we will do what Canadians need, not partially, temporarily or halfway, but with a plan that lowers costs across the economy and protects Canadians from price shocks beyond their control. Suspending only a small part of the tax temporarily while leaving these other federal charges and regulations in place is not a full solution.

The Conservative official opposition proposes that we can and should do the following: Suspend all federal fuel excise tax and GST on gas and diesel and permanently eliminate the so-called clean fuel standard and the industrial carbon tax. If we take these steps, we could deliver meaningful and immediate relief at the pumps and reduce inflationary pressure throughout the supply chain.

Why does fuel matter so much? Virtually everything in our Canadian economy moves by commercial trucking at some point in the delivery chain: goods, groceries, building supplies and services. If it moves, it usually moves on a truck. When fuel costs rise, shipping costs rise, and when shipping costs rise, the price of what Canadians buy rises. That is how inflation gets embedded in day-to-day life.

It is not just trucking. Aviation, marine shipping and rail depend on fuel, as well as mines, forestry operations, major construction sites and heavy-duty equipment. Fuel is the major input cost across our entire economy. If we are serious about finding solutions to affordability, we cannot treat fuel costs as a small or isolated issue. Fuel costs drive the cost of living.

I want to return to a point we often hear from the Prime Minister, that we should focus on the things that we can control here in Canada, not the things that we cannot. On that principle, I will agree. We cannot control global conflicts, international choke points or the decisions of other countries, but we can control federal taxes and policies that increase the costs here at home. So the question is simple. If the government now agrees that suspending the federal excise tax helps Canadians, why not also suspend the GST on gas and diesel? Why not remove policies that permanently drive up costs for Canadian industries and consumers? Why not do everything we can to control and to protect Canadians from what we cannot control? That is what this motion is about.

It is also about recognizing when governments delay action, consequences are real and often permanent. Let me share a real example. At the end of 2025, the community of Crofton, British Columbia was devastated by the news that Domtar would permanently close the pulp mill in that community, costing about 350 well-paying jobs. It was a tragedy for those workers, their families and their community. Now, I am not going to claim that the closure was entirely the fault of government. It was not. However, did the government do everything it could have done to help prevent it? Well, the answer is no.

What is telling is what happened next. Following this closure, the B.C. NDP government announced it would ease industrial carbon pricing for pulp mills going forward. Now, why did it do that? It was because it took a closure and job losses for government to recognize an economic reality. If costs are piled onto a sector that is not competing internationally, costs that competitors may not be paying, that sector can be made less competitive and there can be accelerated closures and job losses. For the people of Crofton, that response was too little, too late.

That is exactly the risk when governments choose half measures and delay. They wait for harm to happen and then they say, “Oops, we had better fix that.” This House has a chance to act early, to choose solutions now, not apologies later. That is where the Conservative official opposition's role is clear, not just to name the problem but, whenever possible, to propose a solution.

The government often tells Canadians it is focused on affordability, competitiveness and resilience. Those are fine words, but words do not lower a grocery bill or fill a fuel tank. If this government is serious, it can prove it today, not with slogans but with a vote. It could vote for measures that actually reduce costs. This should not be that complicated. Canadians want relief that is real, measurable and immediate. They want us to find solutions. They want us to reduce costs that government controls, especially when families are being squeezed.

A temporary suspension of one tax is a start, but Canadians deserve a full plan, a plan like ours. That is what the official opposition is proposing. This is our chance to show Canadians we hear them. This is a chance to put solutions ahead of excuses. This is our chance to vote for affordability. All we have to do is vote in favour of this motion. It is really that simple.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment my colleague for his remarks. We both come from wine regions. Consistently, in my time in this place, he has been a champion for the Canadian wine sector. We have collaborated on a few pieces, so I do want to recognize him for that.

Around the clean fuel standard, I have equated it to the fact of the Conservatives wanting to put lead back into gas tanks or the industrial carbon pricing. I mean, these are ways to be able to reduce emissions and to work around industrial build-out.

Could the member just explain to me whether the Conservatives have any policy about reducing GHG emissions in the country? If not, is their plan to do what was actually proposed in the platform of April 2025, which was to spend billions upon billions of dollars, which is ultimately a cost to the taxpayer and has an impact on constituents in my riding and his? What is it? Can he flesh out a little where the Conservatives actually stand in this area?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let us start off with the so-called clean fuel standard. The previous minister of the environment, Catherine McKenna, under the Trudeau majority, originally started this. They actually said we should have one set of regulations to monitor solid, liquid and gaseous forms of energy. They wanted one ring to rule them all, one regulation to rule them all, and it became so burdensome and complicated that the government ended up shunting half of that framework away in favour of what we have now.

Rather than working with industry on a technical solution that would see good things happen in this country, like, for example, the use of Canadian biofuels and those kinds of things, instead, it encouraged more importation from the Americans that is still being used today to fill it with some of the clean mandates that the government does. They are not only complicated and just pie in the sky, they actually make it where we are dependent on the Americans at a time we should be helping ourselves.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been soaking in the words of my colleague's brilliant speech on this, and I want to ask him about the strange pattern we have seen. Certainly ever since I became a member of Parliament, almost a year ago, the Liberals rail against a Conservative proposal. They will call it reckless and say all sorts of things about it. Then they will say that they are adopting it as their own, but not go all the way. We saw this with the carbon tax for years. They were prepared to lose an election on the carbon tax with their previous leader, but then only repealed a part of it. We now see that they are taking a Conservative proposal, but instead of cutting the 25¢ a litre that our plan would put forward, they are only giving Canadians a 10¢ break and for a shorter period of time.

I am wondering what my colleague, who has been around here a lot longer than I have, thinks of this, what we can do to stop it and help Canadians for real.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to offer my friend a very good piece of advice. He should not soak in anything that I say. There are many other speakers in this place he should marinate in.

I will say this. At the end of the day, the government has an opportunity put before it. Time and time again, when Conservatives put forward great policies that are not only good for Canada but electorally popular, the government then implements a small part of them, and Canadians suffer because of that. We have fewer houses because of its plan and higher costs because of its industrial carbon tax. I hope that, in this case, Liberals can agree with Conservatives that affordability should be the main thing. They have an opportunity today to support a better solution.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, this is great. I enjoy being here. I love engaging with my Conservative colleagues.

What I just heard from the hon. member on the question I asked was that he essentially talked about biofuel policy, and I have not heard the Conservatives talk about that. We obviously have a biofuel policy. It is around the clean fuel regulations. In fact, when I go to Calgary or Saskatchewan and talk to people across this country, such as the Grain Farmers of Ontario I just talked to, they say we need the clean fuel regulations because they are an important driver for farm gate revenue in those spaces.

What I heard the member talk about is biofuel, mentioning the U.S. I guess he is getting down the line of spending more public money, because we can either regulate it or cap it. Where is the Conservative policy? Is it to spend more money in terms of taxpayers' dollars and subsidies to get to the same outcome? Is that what he is saying?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member should know that supply chains take a while to react to certain things. The Trump administration stripped out a number of bipartisan policies that were put in place under a large budget measure a few years ago. It essentially took the carrots away for biofuel manufacturing that scaled up so massively. This is one of the reasons Canada continues to import a lot of its biofuels from outside the country: to be able to fill the so-called clean fuel standards that are here today. These guys have not done so much, as the Americans have taken away those carrots.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise again on behalf of the wonderful people of Lethbridge, Alberta, and to have the chance to voice my concerns for them.

Recently, in my riding, a vegetable-processing plant called Nortera announced that it would be closing its doors. This is significant, because it impacts families in my riding. That is 70 jobs that will be lost, and in a small city of about 115,000 people, that is a big loss. However, in addition to that, it also impacts the farmers who grow the food that is processed at this plant. Those farmers were growing for Nortera and now will no longer be able to do so. As such, they will now have to go and secure other contracts.

We asked this company why it made the decision that it did. It was finding that it was not competitive. It decided to move out of its Canadian base and into other countries, including the United States, because there it found it had a competitive edge. “Competitive edge” is a very important term when it comes to our country and its way forward. Right now, Canadians are being put at a significant disadvantage and, of course, the fuel tax plays a big role. There are many who would argue that it is eroding Canada's competitiveness. When we do not have that, jobs are lost and money flows elsewhere.

A little over a year ago, taking his cue from President Trump, the Prime Minister held a photo opportunity. With a sharpie in his hand, he signed away the carbon tax, or so he said. However, in actuality, while the Liberals would like Canadians to believe that it is gone, it is not, and we have heard that from Liberal members across the aisle here today. They have admitted as much, that the carbon tax is still very much alive and well. It just has a new name. We have the industrial carbon tax, and now we have the fuel standard tax. That is what we like to call it, is it not? The effect is the same. They call it a different name, but at the end of the day, it is costing Canadians a whole lot of money, and it is putting businesses out.

This is a problem. It is a problem for Canadians today, but it is a problem for our future as a nation as well. In other countries, people have been quick to realize that taxes on fuel actually have a big impact on their ability to be competitive and their ability to maintain their citizens, so they have taken concrete measures to reduce those taxes and bring back that competitive edge. As prices have risen, they have taken steps to ease the burden on consumers by reducing fuel taxes.

For example, in Australia, they cut their excise tax in half for three months, reducing their cost of fuel by 26.3¢ per litre. In Spain, they cut their taxes, saving up to 30¢ at the pump. In Ireland, they cut theirs as well, by 20¢ on diesel and 15¢ on gasoline. There are other countries that have done away with the carbon tax altogether, such as Australia, because they know it is just nonsense. It claims to accomplish something for the good of the environment, but actually the measures prove otherwise. It is not meeting the metrics that it promised. People are certainly being punished, and businesses are certainly going without that competitive edge that they deserve to have.

Today, the Liberals have continued their pattern of those flashy photo opportunities that we saw the Prime Minister take advantage of approximately a year ago, when he took out his big sharpie and signed that agreement claiming that the carbon tax was gone, but it is not, so here we are again. The Prime Minister announced his half-measure, saying that he would reduce costs a bit for Canadians. He would reduce costs by taking a bit off at the gas pumps, but only until Labour Day or for a few months. However, that is not what Conservatives are proposing, and that is not what Canadians are requesting.

Canadians need much more if they are to be well served by the policies of the government. Over a decade of punitive fuel taxes has taken a real toll on Canadians, placing growing strain on businesses across the country. In fact, today there were just a couple of articles that were released expressing the views of leaders within oil and gas. They would say that these taxes are actually “eroding” Canada's ability to compete or, in other words, doing away with it and making us weaker. This is a shame, because at this point in time in history, we need Canada's oil and gas like nobody's business, and we have the ability to be strong.

We have the ability to compete. We have the ability to be an answer in a world that is extremely troubled at the moment. We produce oil and gas with the greatest environmental standards in the world, with respect for human dignity and with high pay. That is amazing. That is a good story. Why are we not proud of that and wanting that to flourish?

Canadian industries are at a clear disadvantage as the Liberals continue to pile on costs. Of course, it means, then, that we do in fact lose our competitive edge. Sadly, the Liberal damage does not stop there. It does not stop at the area of industry, and it does not stop at the farm gate. It gets passed down to the moms and dads, the grandmas and grandpas, the aunts and uncles and the students who are driving places or have to heat their homes or buy groceries or household goods. It gets passed all the way down to them. They feel it when they are trying to get to work. They feel it when they are trying to heat their home. They feel it when they are just trying to go grocery shopping to fill their fridge. Canadians are feeling the pain of the Liberal government's bad policies.

The sad thing is that we are seeing the consequences. In my riding, we are watching as people are lining up at the food bank in a way we have never seen before, but we are not the only community where this is the case. Communities across the country are witnessing this. Further to that, we are seeing a massive increase in child poverty. Again, our community is hard hit, but we are not the only ones. Across this country, the amount of child poverty is up. If there is anything that should tug at the heart of a Liberal, I would hope it would be that. For us to allow our children to go without proper nourishment, to allow them to go without proper housing and proper care, is a problem. If the government members are willing to turn a blind eye to that, then shame on them.

This is why a Liberal press conference with half-hearted measures simply will not do the trick. That is more about image than about substance. It is more about the Prime Minister's upholding his own title than about caring for the Canadian people, and that is a problem. Last week, when he was asked to respond to the rising gas prices, the Prime Minister replied, somewhat naively, “Well, I wonder what can be done about that.” It was as if he had never thought of it before. Of course, why would he? Financially, he is well established. He is certainly not feeling the pain. It also goes to the heart of the matter, which is the fact that the Prime Minister and, I dare say, the current government have not considered everyday Canadians and how they are impacted by these punitive taxes.

Canadians deserve more. They deserve more than the half measures that the government has to offer, so the Conservatives have put forward a solution. In fact, we put it forward a long time ago. We have been calling on the government to remove the fuel tax for the entire year, at a minimum. We have asked the Liberals to remove the GST on gasoline and diesel. We have asked the government to permanently take away the fuel standard tax and to permanently remove the industrial carbon tax. In doing these things, we would be more competitive on a business front, and everyday Canadians would be well served because life would become more affordable. These are good, solid policy measures that would serve Canadians well.

Therefore, instead of fruitless photo ops, we would ask the members opposite to give consideration to the true needs of Canadians and to vote in favour of the changes that we have put forward here today, for the sake of our country and for the sake of those who call this place home. There is a real opportunity here to deliver relief to Canadians, to make sure that they are taken care of and that they are put at the forefront. Canadians are not asking for special treatment. They are just asking for fairness. They are asking to be competitive. They are asking to have an opportunity to play on the world stage when they run businesses. The mom who is going to the pumps and filling up her minivan so she can take her kids to sports or school is just asking for a bit of fairness, a bit of relief. The grandma or grandpa who is having a hard time paying their heating bill is just asking for a bit of fairness, a bit of relief. The student who is having a hard time, because they are unemployed thanks to the government, filling their vehicle in order to make it to class is just asking for a bit of fairness, a bit of relief. It is not much.

Therefore, we would call on the government to do the measurable thing, do the right thing and act on behalf of Canada, to go all the way, with no more half measures.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, April 15, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 5:30 p.m. so we can start Private Members' Business.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from December 8, 2025, consideration of the motion that Bill C-231, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Youth Criminal Justice Act

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill C‑231, a bill for David's friends. This bill, introduced by my colleague and friend, the member for Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière, in honour of his son David, seeks to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

David left us too soon. He was way too young. I want to take this opportunity to thank my colleague and his lovely wife Caro for courageously taking the initiative to share their story and that of their beloved son. Passing this bill could help many young Canadians who are struggling with addictions.

In my previous role as shadow minister for addictions, I saw first-hand the chaos and destruction that addiction can cause in the lives of those struggling with the disease, as well as in the lives of their families and communities. I met individuals whose lives had been profoundly disrupted by substance use, where stable employment, housing and relationships had completely eroded over time. I also heard from parents, partners and children who were left to cope with uncertainty, fear and repeated cycles of crisis, relapse, overdose and recovery attempts. These experiences underscored how addiction is not an isolated issue but one that affects the entire family system and places significant strain on frontline services such as health care, law enforcement and social services.

Today I am going to share a story that is very personal. I want to profoundly thank my brother for allowing me to tell a part of his story. My brother Brent started using drugs at 14, while he was in high school, shortly after our mom's death from cancer. What started as teenagers being teenagers very quickly changed. He quickly fell into addiction, using drugs to get through classes and just to get by. He was in the world of addiction and active drug use for over a decade, a decade where he struggled to feel normal, a decade stuck. The only way he felt normal was when he was using drugs, through high school and just barely surviving. Through his decade of active drug use, he had many run-ins with the law. As a family, there was so much stress and so many sleepless nights wondering where he was, how he was doing and if he would ever find a path to recovery.

I told him about the bill and asked him about his thoughts. He liked it. He thought it would be a good idea and that it very well might have helped him when he first started on his path of addiction. He shared with me that he often wonders what his life would have looked like had he been offered treatment after his first run-in with the law as a minor, how much further ahead he would be had he not lost that decade stuck in addiction, had he been able to get the help he needed sooner.

After many years of struggle, he accepted that he had a problem, and he started his journey toward recovery. It was not a straight line, and it took so much work, but he put in the work. I am so incredibly proud to share that my baby brother is now in recovery from addiction and that he is over a year sober today. He is doing so well. He is in his first year of trade school as a plumber-steamfitter. He is literally and figuratively helping build Canada and build what we need, and showing that recovery is possible every single day.

These experiences have reinforced the importance of a compassionate, evidence-based response that prioritizes immediate safety and also long-term pathways to recovery, recognizing that addiction is a complex health condition. Early intervention in youth addiction is critical because it can significantly improve long-term outcomes by preventing experimentation from developing into entrenched substance use.

When we look at Bill C-231, that idea really sits at the centre of what meaningful reform should achieve, helping young people earlier. Why not? Most youth who come into contact with the justice system are not simply offenders. That was not the case for my brother. He was struggling with addiction, trauma and mental health challenges, and he needed someone to see him. He needed our justice system to offer him the support he needed, and that would have been addiction treatment. If the only response is punitive, we risk missing the chance to actually change the trajectory of their lives.

Adolescence is a window where intervention can genuinely work, where relationships, supports and treatment can redirect a young person before more patterns set in. Strengthening the Youth Criminal Justice Act in this way would reflect a more realistic and humane understanding of what kids need: timely support, accountability paired with rehabilitation, and coordinated services that address the root cause. Done properly, early intervention gives young people a real shot at stability, recovery and a future that looks very different from the path they were on.

This is one example where Alberta provides a powerful example through our PChAD, protection of children abusing drugs, program. Under PChAD, families in Alberta have a legal option where young people in severe substance use can get involuntary treatment. Families can apply to the court for help, and, importantly, the system responds in a way that is focused on stabilization and recovery, not punishment.

When a judge issues a PChAD order, the young person can be placed in a structured, supervised setting where immediate safety is addressed. Withdrawal can be managed, if necessary, and a clear pathway into treatment is created. It also brings families into the process in a meaningful way, rather than leaving them isolated and overwhelmed while trying to manage a crisis at home.

The practical outcomes are significant and very real. It means that a parent is not left alone, wondering whether their child will survive another night out in crisis. It also means that police are not repeatedly acting as the default responders to what is fundamentally a health issue. It means that emergency departments are not becoming the only safety net available. It means that young people are given a real opportunity to pause, to stabilize and to engage with treatment before their situation becomes worse.

PChAD is not perfect. No program is. However, it reflects an important principle: When addiction is present in a young person's life, early structured interventions can change outcomes. I have met some of the children who went through this program, and it changed their life. Recovery is in fact possible.

I am encouraging all my colleagues to consider supporting the bill and giving kids across Canada some of the support that is available if they happen to be lucky enough to be from Alberta. The same principle is what is here in Bill C-231. It is trying to bring more consistency into the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The bill asks us to recognize something simple, which is that for many young people, addiction is not separate from their contact with the justice system. It is often at the centre of it.

If we treat each court appearance as an isolated event, we miss the pattern and we miss the chance to intervene. The legislation is about connecting these dots. It would ensure that when the justice system sees a pattern, it could respond, and with more than repetition. It could respond with treatment, structure and a path towards recovery.

Members of the House all come with different perspectives, but we share one basic responsibility. We are here to make decisions that affect real people, especially young people who are struggling and still have a chance to turn their life around. Every single person has a chance to turn their life around, but why are we not affording this to the youth in our country? The bill is not asking us to choose between accountability and compassion. It is asking us to finally align them in a way that reflects reality.

Young people need both structure and support. Families need options, not hopelessness. Our justice system needs tools to match the complexity of what it is seeing. That is what Bill C-231 offers: a practical step towards a system that intervenes earlier, connects better and gives young people a real chance at direction.

One thing I will share is that recovery takes a lot of work. People who choose recovery are some of the bravest people I have ever had the chance to encounter. This is not them taking the easy way out; this is them doing the hardest work possible. What the bill from my colleague, the member for Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière, is proposing is simply allowing these kids to put in the hard work and get their life back on track.

I am going to close by saying this. If there is still time to help a young person turn their life around, we have the responsibility to try. Why would we not, for David, for the friends of David and for every family still hoping for a different outcome?

For David, for all of David's friends and for all the families across Canada hoping for a different outcome, we should pass this bill.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and speak to private member's Bill C‑231, which would amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act. For brevity's sake, I will refer to the act by its acronym, the YCJA.

I would like to salute the work of my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière, whose riding neighbours mine. Tragic circumstances led him to work on this incredibly important bill. I would like to thank him for working on it and for his remarkable dedication to our young people and to changing lives, families and communities.

I would like to show that the bill's underlying goal is entirely commendable, considering that its aim is to amend the YCJA to strengthen the approach to addiction treatment program in its enforcement framework. Bill C-231 reflects the lived realities and daily challenges facing certain young Canadians. In Canada, youths aged 15 to 24 are more likely to experience mental health and substance-related disorders than any other age group.

According to the Canadian Student Tobacco, Alcohol and Drugs Survey, 37% of students in grades 7 to 12—secondary school to residents of Quebec—reported that they had consumed alcohol in the past year. Over the same period, 18% of students had used cannabis, 6% had used prescription drugs in a manner other than prescribed, and 7% had used illegal drugs. Even more troubling was the fact that 22% of students reported having used two substances at the same time during their lifetime, while 18% had done so in the previous 12 months. Those are big numbers. In our ridings, what they represent are the effects of substances on young lives, families and communities, and some people looking for solutions.

I want to salute the work of organizations in my riding, such as Virage Santé mentale, L'Éveil, Phelps Aide, Mental Health Estrie and addiction rehab centres. Despite having very few resources, these folks work miracles to help young people. This is essential work, and it is even more desperately needed in the regions, where resources are limited, everyone knows everyone and accessing available resources is not always easy. Having more legislative tools to support youth and families is, as I said, of tremendous importance.

In this context, Bill C‑231 proposes to highlight and, in some cases, clarify the measures governing addiction treatment programs for teenagers. For example, it would require police officers to consider whether it would be appropriate to refer a young person suspected of a drug offence to an addiction treatment program before initiating or pursuing legal proceedings against that individual. The bill also proposes to allow, in certain cases, the youth court to delay sentencing to give the individual the opportunity to participate in an addiction treatment program. It also proposes to amend the YCJA to authorize the youth court to include, in certain orders, an obligation to participate in such a program. Finally, it provides that a mere failure or refusal to comply with this condition shall not result in a custodial sentence.

As we all know, the YCJA establishes a separate legal framework for young persons who have committed or are accused of committing a criminal offence, a framework that takes into account that they are more vulnerable, are still developing, and are still dependent on adults. One of the fundamental principles of the YCJA is to protect the public while promoting the rehabilitation and social reintegration of young offenders. It also emphasizes the importance of preventing crime by referring young offenders to community programs or organizations to address the underlying causes of their behaviour.

Bill C-231 is consistent with these fundamental principles of the youth criminal justice system, and the government intends to support it while proposing certain amendments in committee. In my view, this bill would benefit from certain amendments to better achieve its objectives.

For example, one of the changes proposed in Bill C‑231 would impose a new requirement for police officers to determine whether it would be appropriate to refer a young person, with their consent, to an addiction treatment program before initiating or pursuing legal proceedings. Bill C‑231 could be slightly expanded so that this requirement also applies to Crown prosecutors. This would further encourage the use of addiction treatment programs and referrals to those programs.

This approach would also be consistent with Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, which proposes to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act to specify that prosecutors must consider extrajudicial measures before initiating or pursuing legal proceedings. This requirement already exists for police officers under section 6 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The YCJA also recognizes that diversion measures are often considered the most appropriate and effective solution for addressing youth crime. They allow for prompt and tailored interventions aimed at addressing the root causes of delinquent behaviour. Extending this requirement to the prosecutor could help further encourage the use of substance abuse treatment programs both before and after charges are laid.

That said, it is important for the youth justice system to adopt a targeted approach to diversion for drug-related offences. The offences for which police officers and prosecutors should be required to consider referral to a substance use treatment program should be simple possession offences. More specifically, they should be limited to the possession offences set out in subsection 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and subsection 8(1) of the Cannabis Act. This would align the proposed amendments to the YCJA with the diversion measures added to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act in 2022. More specifically, these measures include issuing a warning or referring the person, with their consent, to a program or organization that can help them. However, these measures may only be applied to persons suspected of having committed a simple possession offence.

The bill also proposes amending certain provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act to add guidelines and orders that apply exclusively to substance abuse treatment programs. This more restrictive approach carries certain risks. On the one hand, it could lead to unintended and adverse interpretations that might limit access to other types of treatment programs, particularly those focused on mental health or on behaviour modification and skills development.

One of the reasons this bill is so important is that it highlights the critical intersection between the criminal justice system and public health. However, public health issues are not limited to substance abuse. For example, in Canada, people living with mental health conditions are also overrepresented in the criminal justice system. For some of the proposed amendments, referring more broadly to treatment programs rather than solely to programs for addiction or substance abuse would allow the bill's objective to be maintained while avoiding the unintended exclusion of other important forms of treatment. For example, a broader approach would clarify that youth courts may defer sentencing to allow a youth to participate in various types of treatment programs, rather than limiting this option solely to substance abuse treatment programs.

Bill C‑231 pursues an important goal: to help young people struggling with problematic substance use access treatment programs so they can receive care rather than be punished by the justice system. It supports many of our election promises, with approaches that divert youth away from crime by providing urgent and immediate support to address the overdose crisis while protecting the public. For these reasons, the government is prepared to support this bill, while proposing certain amendments to strengthen its objectives and expand its scope.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did not have the pleasure or honour of knowing David, but I do have the pleasure of knowing his father. We do not always see eye to eye, but I have a great deal of respect and a deep affection for him.

I am pleased to speak to this bill on behalf of the Bloc Québécois. I can say straight away that we will be supporting Bill C-231. Having read it, I would say that this is part of the Bloc's DNA. Since its inception, the Bloc Québécois has consistently supported diversion measures.

The Bloc Québécois believes in rehabilitation. Obviously, there are cases where imprisonment is necessary and where a firm hand is required. The Criminal Code is there for a reason, and that is a good thing. Our prisons serve a purpose, but we must be cautious. We must not treat them as a panacea. Imprisoning someone is not always a useful, or the most useful, option.

Because they are younger, our young people in particular are, by nature, less experienced and less mature. They are more likely to make mistakes, sometimes minor, but sometimes more serious. In either case, as a society, we must be compassionate and seek to guide them back onto the right path rather than imprisoning them in a system that may be difficult to break free from afterwards.

We had similar discussions back then on Bill C-5. These discussions were not always easy, and we, the Bloc Québécois, supported diversion. When I read Bill C-231, it seemed like a second chance to revisit this issue in a useful way, not only for the courts as a whole, but most of all, for our young people.

Addiction is less a legal issue than a medical issue. Locking someone up in prison for any amount of time will not cure an addiction. Treatment, however, can. Does treatment always work? No, certainly not, but does that mean that treatment is not worth trying?

Whether the child involved is our child, or the child of a loved one, a neighbour, a friend or a complete stranger, rehabilitation is a worthwhile investment for any child struggling with addiction. It may not work, and at some point, it may be necessary to admit defeat and opt for harsher measures like incarceration or other alternatives. However, when a young person is struggling with this kind of problem, enlisting measures outside the legal system is not only our duty, it serves our interests as a society.

The Bloc Québécois believes in rehabilitation, for both adults and young people. However, does a society have to invest billions of dollars to build prisons and hire guards to keep people who have committed crimes within its walls? In some cases, I would say yes, but in many others, I would say no.

Even when it comes to adults struggling with addiction, the Bloc Québécois has often said that these are cases in which diversion measures should be attempted. It is more profitable for society, more compassionate toward society as a whole and more effective, but especially when we are talking about youth rather than adults.

Our young people need love. I think that Bill C‑231 offers that. We wholeheartedly support our colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière on this bill.

I was listening to our Liberal colleague, who may have been hinting at the government's intention to propose certain amendments. There may indeed be some amendments. That said, I am pleased to see that all members of the House are on board with this idea, without division or partisanship, which is unfortunately often unhealthy. It is not because of ill will, but rather because we are often bound by the constraints of party platforms and campaign promises. That is the nature of the beast. We are here because we were elected on different platforms, and we need to stand up for our ideas.

However, there are instances like this one where the principles we uphold allow us to find common ground on a specific issue. That is the case here. I wonder whether we are dealing with a bill that could be one of the few opportunities we have to proceed by unanimous consent, or whether we could even fast-track it. I would love to see this bill come into force this spring, or as soon as possible.

As I said, I never had the pleasure of meeting David, but I would like to close by wishing him all the best.

I congratulate my friend on his bill.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to a topic that we often avoid discussing because it makes us uncomfortable. We do not like talking about it, but it is impossible to ignore: the distress among young people. As some members have already mentioned, 20% of young people experience mental health problems before the age of 18. It is therefore extremely important for us to address it.

These mental health problems will indirectly or perhaps too quickly result in addiction disorders that can often lead to preventable tragedies. As everyone knows, these things are happening and are present in schools, in some families and in ridings across Canada. Too often, however, our response falls short. As parents, we may not have the knowledge to deal with the situation. Even experts have limited time and resources. We are having a hard time addressing this ever-growing problem.

The problem is that we continue to look at what young people are doing without really trying to understand what they are going through. In some cases, they are suffering. Their suffering is expressed through actions and behaviours, and sometimes also through substance use. For many young people, substance use is not just a matter of curiosity. It is not just something they do because others do it, on a temporary basis, just to try it out or to have an experience. For some, it is a way of managing something that is hurting them. For some, it is a way of holding on, of continuing to move forward despite that pain.

Some young people have difficulty sleeping and are experiencing severe anxiety. They do not really understand what is going on in their heads. As we know, young people's brains are not yet fully developed. They do not necessarily have enough life experience to draw on to reassure themselves and tell themselves that things will be fine in the end. Some of them at a certain point, in their daily reflections or when they discover drugs, for example, find something that brings them peace. It is not a perfect or healthy solution, and some young people know that. However, it is enough to help them carry on. It is a solution that may be temporary, but all too often it becomes permanent. This is often how it starts. From that point on, using drugs becomes a response. It is not the right response, but it is one that is accessible, easy and consistent.

Meanwhile, support systems are difficult to access. There are waiting lists. Services vary from region to region. Parents are seeking help without really knowing where to turn. People are ill-informed, perhaps ill-equipped. Meanwhile, the substance is always there. It is readily available, without the need for an appointment. Access to it is consistent. The substance is attentive and non-judgmental. These young people end up becoming dependent on it.

We adults mean well. Professionals want to step in, but they often arrive too late, after a crime has been committed, after an arrest has been made. We often arrive once things have already spiralled out of control. How do we answer the call? We respond with a criminal justice approach, one that is not based on the young person's needs. We intervene based on the actions taken, but we do not really focus on what lies behind them. It is a band-aid solution. Yet, if there is one thing that is absolutely essential, in my view, it is prevention.

Prevention should always be a top priority. Prevention is precisely about preventing these problems whether they involve physical or mental health. If we, as a society, fail to take preventive measures, we should stop being surprised when they happen again. We must have the courage to acknowledge that the current model has its limitations. It is not because practitioners are not doing their jobs, but because, given its current structure, the system always responds too late, and often in the wrong place. That is exactly why my colleague's Bill C‑231 is so important. It introduces something we have not done enough of so far. It allows us to take a step back and ask what would happen if, instead of simply punishing people, we actually helped them.

In practical terms, what is the purpose of this bill? This bill would make it possible to delay sentencing so a young person can participate in treatment. It would make it possible to include treatment in the judge's decision, and that treatment could solve the problem. Most of all, the bill sends a very important message: A young person who does not succeed on the first try should not be put directly in custody, because the fact is that treatment can be a long and winding road.

Treatment involves relapses, setbacks and times when it is just not working, but that does not mean a young person has failed. It means they are going through a process, and the system should be able to understand that. This bill is telling us that we have to make a choice. We have to enact a law, and we have to make a choice about that law. Either we carry on with a problem-based approach, or we adopt a needs-based approach. This is a political and incredibly important choice.

An young person's brain is impressionable and can be easily molded. It is still able to create good reflexes and find good ways of dealing with problems. However, when the window closes, we often lose the young person and we lose them for a long time. Indeed, we need to pass this bill, but we also need to have the courage to go further. We need to make sure that services are available. We need to train case workers and ensure that programs are available across the country. Above all, we need to stop working in silos. That is key. Too often, today, justice works on one side, health works on another side, and social services is somewhere in there. In the middle is the young person and their loved ones, if they are lucky enough to have loved ones. All these professionals have to navigate a system that is not made for the young person. The young person also has to navigate a system that is not made for them.

However, let us be honest. Passing a bill without providing the necessary resources will not change much. If we tell a young person that they need to seek treatment but they have to wait three, six or 12 months, in reality, we are telling them that we are not ready for them right now. Timing is very important in a young person's life. Windows of opportunity may open, but they can close pretty quickly too.

I think we need to do better. What we are seeing is only part of the story. Substance use and crime are part of the story, just the tip of the iceberg. Beneath that, there are other issues. There is distress. There is trauma and there are needs that are not being met. If we do not address those issues, we will not solve the root of the problem. We need to intervene early. Intervening early is not about leniency. It is about effectiveness. Prevention means preventing problems from recurring. It means avoiding situations that could escalate and preventing lives from going off track.

Yes, the legal system can sometimes become a tipping point, but why wait until that happens? Why is the government waiting for things to fall apart before taking action?

No young person, in my opinion, chooses to suffer. I think these actions are signals. They are attempts to cope, attempts that may be clumsy and even dangerous at times, but they are attempts nonetheless. I believe our role is to provide the best possible response. There are people involved in this work on a daily basis. As parliamentarians, we do not know everything. We are not experts on every aspect of society. We therefore need to rely on key experts.

I had the opportunity turn to Geneviève Labbé, a psychoeducator. She is in charge of clinical addiction education, but more importantly, she has 20 years of experience. That means 20 years of guiding young people, 20 years of supporting families and 20 years of seeing what works and what does not work. My entire speech is based on my conversations with her. She reminded me of something extremely important: For every young person, there is a young person not doing well, who has needs and who needs support. Often, it is a young person who can still be helped.

Today, the bill is giving us an opportunity to do things differently. It may not be perfect, but it will be different. We have a choice to act consistently, more humanly and more effectively. Essentially, the question is simple: Do we act while there is still time, or do we keep waiting until it is too late? Helping a young person today does not just solve a problem, it changes a trajectory. I think that changing a trajectory is vitally important.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière has five minutes for his right of reply.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank all my colleagues who have spoken about Bill C-231.

Honestly, it warms my heart to see that MPs here in the House are able to take such a common-sense approach to a difficult bill. The discussions have been taking young people into account and taking resources into account as well. So many people have had personal experience with this. That is what I have observed since I first spoke about this bill. So many people have had experiences with young people who have struggled with addiction that it has opened my eyes and allowed me to say that we are on the right track.

I am not alone in this. My wife, Caro, my daughters, Marie-Soleil and Justine, our grandchildren and all our loved ones are in it with me. Caro recently had the opportunity to appear on a one-hour podcast where she talked about her experience. It was a Fondation VIVERE podcast. Since, unlike her, I am fortunate enough to have the opportunity to speak here, I want to tell people to go and listen to that podcast if they have some free time. They will see the other side of the story, that of a mother who is also going through these hard times. I want to thank Caro for her support and, as she said in the podcast, we are looking forward now, even though it is hard.

If we manage to save even one young person through all of these efforts that we are making, then we will be happy. We will have accomplished something all together. The goal is to save as many young people as possible, but as long as we save the life of even one young person and give them a future, then we will know that we made the right decision and that we did our jobs as parliamentarians by improving laws to help people.

I want to thank the Bloc Québécois members from Laurentides—Labelle, Abitibi—Témiscamingue and Rivière‑du‑Nord. I also want to thank the member for South Shore—St. Margarets, the member for Argenteuil—La Petite‑Nation and the member for Compton—Stanstead who spoke today. I want to thank my Conservative colleagues, including the member for Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford and the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, who, by the way, shared an account about her own family today for the first time since she has been a member of Parliament. Although she is our party's critic for addictions, she never shared that story. That is the goal. We need to talk about it, break the secrecy and ensure we understand the issues, that we talk about them and that we find solutions together. I also want to thank my colleague, the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix, who is a strong believer in prevention.

As a society, we have to do more to stop young people from ending up where so many end up today. Once they are in the system, we need to help them get out. That is what Bill C-231, the friends of David act, is all about. The bill is called that for a reason. There are thousands of young people in Canada, like David, who will one day face the justice system because their lives have been literally consumed by drugs. Whether by choice or because of the influence of their peers, not everyone will react the same way, unfortunately. Some will remain in control of their drug use, while others, unfortunately, will become controlled by it. When addiction takes over, sadly, the downward spiral happens fast.

How can a minor pay for what they consume when they are underage and have no income, no wages? Obviously, they will do so by committing crimes. This becomes a vicious cycle that needs to be broken. Bill C-231, in its current form, is a step in the right direction. I have heard the recommendations for amendments to the bill. It makes perfect sense to me if we can help more young people, while still ensuring that judges focus on treatment.

That is precisely the problem highlighted by the current bill. Judges do not see the word “treatment” explicitly stated in the law. We need to keep the word “treatment” because it needs to become automatic. If police officers decide to take a youth into custody and bring them to a treatment centre, that decision must be made with the youth’s consent, but above all within the framework of a judicial process. Unfortunately, good intentions, as I have experienced myself, are sometimes not enough. It takes a wall. For some adolescents, the justice system is a wall that will help them realize in that moment that they can make a different choice for their lives.

I look forward to hearing the proposals and seeing how we can adapt Bill C-231 in committee.

I would like to thank all my colleagues in the House for the support they have shown so far for Bill C-231. I believe that, together with my wife, Caro, my family, and all my colleagues, we can truly make a difference.