Mr. Speaker, in my time in this place, being almost seven years now, I love opposition day motions. It is always a great privilege to rise in this place to bring the perspective of my constituents in Kings—Hants and engage on the opportunity that the opposition has, whether that be the Conservatives, the NDP or the Bloc, or I guess the Conservatives and the Bloc in this Parliament, to put forward its policy positions so that we are able to litigate the ideas of the opposition. Obviously, the job of the opposition is to hold the government to account, and we respect that, but I always enjoy this opportunity on opposition day motions.
Today is broadly about affordability. The Conservatives have listed a number of policy adjustments they would make, and there are some areas where we agree with the Conservatives and some areas where we do not agree. This gives me an opportunity to, first, talk about what the Prime Minister announced today. This is something I know the Conservatives support: the removal of the federal excise tax on gasoline, which represents 10¢ a litre. The Prime Minister announced that the government will be doing that from April 20 up to Labour Day. Essentially for four months, there will be a reprieve for Canadians across the board of 10¢ a litre. We think that is important.
We recognize what is happening right now in the Middle East with the war against Iran and the impact of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. It is creating affordability challenges for Canadians, and it will have consequences and cascading impacts over the next number of months. However, I was disappointed that the opposition day motion from the Conservative Party makes no mention of why Canadians are actually feeling higher price points around fuel. There is no mention of the fact that this is part of the global dynamic that we are dealing with. Yes, we have an opportunity to deal with what we can do to provide temporary relief to Canadians. We are going to take that opportunity. I know this will be welcome news in Kings—Hants and across the country. On that aspect, we agree.
The Conservatives have talked a lot about the fact that it should have been for 12 months. I would say that the government's response today is a responsible one. It gives clarity for the next four months, with the ability to extend. No one in this room, no one in this chamber and no one in this country has a crystal ball to see what is going to transpire over the next number of months. The government has taken an important step to provide some affordability relief for Canadians. Again, 10¢ a litre is important for people who are struggling to get by, and this is a measure that the government supports. We have implemented it for four months. We disagree that it has to be a 12-month removal at this moment. Let us see what happens in the days ahead. Obviously, we are hoping for a situation where we see the removal of the blockade at the Strait of Hormuz so that products can move back into the world market. We know that this will have important consequences for the global economy, including here in Canada. Again, there is not one single mention in the Conservative motion about the fact of the circumstances we are all dealing with at this point, but on that element, we agree.
I listened to my hon. colleague from Brandon—Souris, who just spoke, and the member for Stormont—Dundas—Glengarry before him. I would ask my honourable colleagues on the other side to consider this. My hon. colleague from Brandon—Souris, who just spoke, said that the government is not funding things that matter to his constituents. When we look at the GST in terms of the revenue the government collected, I think the words the Conservatives have used are that the Liberals are going to “pocket” that money instead of putting it “back in the pockets of Canadians”. I am all for affordability. It is important that we are empowering Canadians, but no, the Liberals are not pocketing that money. The revenues collected by the government support programs that matter to constituents in that member's riding, in my riding and in ridings across this House.
Do the Conservatives not recognize that when we introduced the Canada child benefit, it is supporting Canadians across the country, including in their own ridings? It is something I am proud of, because it was our government that actually changed the way in which we support young Canadians and families in this country. Before, the Conservative policy allowed individuals who made over $1 million to benefit from the government. I have nothing against individuals who are wealthy in this country, and we are proud of people who do well, but at the end of the day, I hope we would all agree that individuals who have an income of over $1 million a year probably do not need assistance from the government to raise their children. They have the means to do that. We actually created a program that targets the benefit on the basis of income so that there is equity in how individuals have the resources to raise their children and make sure they have healthy food and the ability to perhaps participate in sports or art programs. Again, the Conservatives are not recognizing that the GST helps fund that broadly.
How about national child care? In my own riding, I have seen the benefits of what this program represents in the way we have worked with the provinces and territories to build out additional access to care and additional spaces for our youth. That is an important public policy measure for young Canadians to get an important start in life, to be able to have the resources around them. We know that will have economic and intrinsic benefits for generations and decades to come. Again, there is no mention of the fact that the GST helps support the general revenue that the government pays into these programs that matter for affordability.
Beyond what it might mean to young Canadians, which is probably the most important point, the way we have been able to reduce the cost of child care across this country is a massive affordability measure. That is money back in people's pockets, too. Unfortunately, we never see members of His Majesty's loyal opposition talk about the fact that it is good public policy. In fact, the Conservatives have consistently voted against it. Their proposal today would actually remove the revenues that are supporting these types of government programs. It is a very short-sighted policy prescription and not how the government would move forward.
I have a lot of seniors in my riding. We were the government that augmented and increased old age security. It has been a number of years, but I will remind members that it was the Conservative Party that told seniors they were going to have to wait longer before they received the benefits for seniors in this country.
Again, through the GST, there is a program. These revenues are used to help support social programming across this country. There is no mention from the Conservative Party about the fact that this is the type of funding that the Conservatives would cut, which could have consequential impacts on social programs.
Our government is making generational investments in defence and infrastructure across the country. The Conservatives have voted in some elements of this. I will remind my constituents back home that, under the last Conservative government, when we had one in this country, defence spending dipped below 1% of the GDP. I am deeply proud of the Prime Minister and our team for getting it back up to 2%. We are going to continue to increase that, and that costs money. We are running deficits.
The irony of what the Conservatives are talking about today is that next week they will be talking about the idea that maybe some of the money that came into the government coffers should have been used to reduce the debt. We will wait until a week forward to see how that actually plays out, but again, the GST funds existing programs, and we are making decisions to put money back in the pockets of Canadians. It is important to make sure that we are being mindful of our fiscal context as well as continuing to not only support programs but also manage Canada's dynamic, while also being thoughtful of how we can make sure money is going back into the pockets of Canadians across the country.
I want to take some time to talk about the clean fuel standard. Members might have seen, and perhaps were interested in, my question to the member for Brandon—Souris when I talked about leaded fuel. It was Brian Mulroney's Progressive Conservative government, and we can talk about the differences I see in the current federal Conservative Party versus the old Progressive Conservative style of government that we used to see in the past, but it was under that government that there was a lot of emphasis on removing lead from fuel in Canada. This was not just Canada. There were other countries around the world doing this. The dynamic was that it led to better performance on an efficiency basis, but it was also an important environmental outcome, and people came to accept that this was smart public policy.
Here we are, a number of decades later. We do have work to do as a government. We think it is important that the government ought to reduce GHG emissions in this country. We have adjusted policy, and I support the Prime Minister wholeheartedly in that, but we think this is still important.
The Conservative platform for the last election did not have much to say with respect to this question, which is fine, but it did say that the Conservatives would spend taxpayers' dollars to try to further incentivize the reduction of GHG emissions in the country, so pardon me if I find it a bit hypocritical to have the Conservatives stand up to talk about policies for reducing emissions and driving cleaner fuel efficiency, just like leaded versus unleaded fuel in the Brian Mulroney government, and the cost of those. This is notwithstanding the fact that some of the principal beneficiaries under the clean fuel regulations are the farmers across this country who put in ethanol, whether from the canola dynamic in western Canada or corn farmers in eastern Canada. This actually supports farmers. The Conservatives like to beat their chest and talk about how much they love farmers, but respectfully, I have not heard a whole lot of intelligent public policy from the Conservative benches on this.
My question is, how would the Conservatives do it differently? I guess they would spend more taxpayer dollars to try to drive outcomes that were perhaps even less efficient. What happened to the idea of using the private sector and that private signals can drive the innovation outcome we want to see? I think it is important that we start to talk more about this in the country.
The Conservatives like to quote seven cents to 17¢, which is from a PBO report. If we talk to the obligated parties under the clean fuel standard, they will tell us that it is not as high as what the PBO has quoted, yet that is what the Conservatives continue to use in the House. If there is a one-cent, two-cent or three-cent impact, that money, that industrial benefit, is staying in this country, where it is supporting farmers. We are seeing investments in Alberta, for example in Strathcona, where there is an ability to use that blended renewable diesel to reduce emissions, and the actual intrinsic benefits are staying in this country.
We have a ton of Conservative MPs from Saskatchewan and Alberta. I was just in Calgary last week, with the Calgary Chamber of Commerce and the businesses there, talking about the importance of clean fuel regulations. I was dealing with farmers at the Calgary Stampede. They would talk to me about the importance of the clean fuel standard and biofuel policy in this country. I headed to Regina, where, again, real farmers in their communities were saying that this was absurd. The Conservatives love to say these are lobbyists, but, no, these are farmers.
I think it is important that both major parties start to get aligned in this public policy, because at the end of the day, all the Conservatives are doing is undermining a policy that reduces emissions in this country and has one of the key benefits to farm gate policy in western and eastern Canada, Quebec or Ontario. The Conservatives never mention that. They never talk about the fact that this comes back.
The Conservatives are suggesting that we get rid of the clean fuel standard, which in my mind, in 2026, is akin to saying that we should bring back leaded fuel, that we remove the ability to reasonably clean up our fuel to make it even more fuel efficient, reduce emissions and have an industrial benefit in this country, that we take all of that away. Let us take away the certainty that has built over time so that we have seen the industrial benefit build up in the country. Then, let us go a step further with industrial pricing and the largest obligated parties in the country, the largest emitters, for whom we have a policy to be able to work to incentivize reduced emissions and remove probably one of the most effective public policies.
I would remind them where industrial carbon pricing started in the country. It was in Alberta, under a Conservative government. It started these policies because it, operating under a different strain of conservatism, understood that this was important public policy to balance environmental progress and industrial competitiveness.
I have a question for the Conservatives. Hopefully, many of my colleagues find me to be a pragmatic sort in the House. I understand we have to balance competitiveness and the factors we have in place, but I would humbly suggest, where is their reasonable public policy? Is it to spend billions of dollars in their platform and have none of the other regulatory tools that can help drive industrial benefit? Then they would be talking out of both sides of their mouths, because they ought to tell Canadians about the true cost to them and what the tax increases would have to be to afford that level of public spending.
Why do the Conservatives not support a policy that is regulatory? If we talk to the obligated parties, they would tell us that it is not seven cents a litre, but even if it is two, three or four cents a litre, it is driving industrial benefits. It is driving jobs in this country. It is supporting farmers in this country. What do the hon. opposition and the Conservative Party stand for? I know it has been an interesting time for the Conservative Party over the last number of months, but I really hope that the members, for whom I have great respect, and I know some better than others, will take it upon themselves to challenge the leadership of the Conservative Party, because there needs to be more thoughtful public policy.
While I am on the topic of farmers and talking biofuel policy, which obviously is connected to the debate, and for which I have stood up in this House consistently, I remember the day to this moment. It was April 17, 2025. I was briefly the minister of agriculture in the Prime Minister's last government. We were at the Canadian Federation of Agriculture debate. I would humbly suggest that the Liberal Party of Canada had a more comprehensive plan for farmers in the last platform. We can talk about that and what we are doing.
I really respect the member for Foothills. He is a great guy and a great champion for Canadian agriculture. Sadly, he literally had nothing to work with. I know my hon. colleague from the B.C. interior will have to litigate that with the member for Foothills, but I like the guy. Sadly, he had nothing to work with, because the Conservative platform had nothing substantive for farmers, nothing on business risk management programs and nothing on the Canadian Agricultural Loans Act and how we can increase that. Those were things that we had. Their platform had nothing on AgriMarketing and what we are doing to support commodities.
The member for Brandon—Souris talked about expanding markets. I am proud to say that I was with the Prime Minister in January, and the Premier of Saskatchewan in September. I am proud that we have re-established seven billion dollars' worth of agricultural market access. Seafood in my neck of the woods in Atlantic Canada is deeply important, and that is back.
Respectfully, Conservatives need to open their eyes. This is what we are doing. By the way, I know the member knows that, because when I am in the communities in western Canada, they are recognizing it. People who by no means have been long-time supporters of the Liberal Party are saying that they like what they are seeing from the Prime Minister. They like what they are seeing from the government, but that to me is the dynamic.
Industrial carbon pricing is a policy where in many cases the provincial governments have taken on the responsibility of administering these programs and have the ability to move forward. Okay, that is great. Hypothetically, let us cut it all. Let us get rid of it all.
I guess the position of the Conservative Party is that we ought to just spend billions upon billions. Economists say that is the most ineffective way to drive the outcomes we may care about, where we do have to be mindful in a world right now where, frankly, on the public policy spectrum of what is important geopolitically, right now it is defence. Countries and people want to make sure that we have the sovereign capacity at home. We are focused on that. We want to make sure we are building an economically resilient country. We are focused on energy development. The government is committed to that. I can point to examples like Bay du Nord in Atlantic Canada.
By the way, I want to hear us talking more positively about the oil and gas sector in Atlantic Canada. These are some of the lowest-emission energy barrels, oil barrels, in the world. It can be done sustainably. There is an opportunity for that. Of course, we have to continue to drive emissions down. We have to continue to work on environmental outcomes, but this is a great Canadian success story. We talk a lot, and rightfully so, about the energy patch in Alberta and Saskatchewan. I am deeply proud as a Nova Scotian, and ultimately as a Canadian, about what that means, but we also have to talk about Atlantic Canada.
Again, I struggle to be able to identify what the Conservative vision is for the country, other than to just get rid of everything and get rid of some of the policy that is actually driving industrial benefit. Let us just take emissions right out of it. Let us just pretend we do not care about the environment whatsoever. This is actually industrial policy. This is about creating investments. Strathcona Resources has a multi-billion-dollar investment in Alberta. Conservatives want to create the policy uncertainty that would kill those types of investments.
The Conservative Party would like to do that, and I just struggle with it, so I appeal to my colleagues on the other side. I want to challenge the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot. I do not pretend to sit in the caucus meetings of the Conservative Party. I will have to try to get tidbits from other members to tell me what happens there, but I hope to God that they are challenging the member for Battle River—Crowfoot, notwithstanding that he represented Carleton in the last election. We are proud of our member for Carleton in this Parliament.
However, the member who now represents Battle River—Crowfoot does not have much for farmers. Again, the policy of the Conservative Party at this point for Canadian farmers is to get rid of the industrial carbon price and the clean fuel standard, which actually support farmers in Western Canada. I do not know what else there is. Conservatives do not talk about business risk management. They do not talk about intergenerational transfer of farm assets. They do not talk about the things that we can do to protect land in the country. I do not see any of that kind of stuff.
The member was standing there—
