House Publications

    Mr. Speaker, as chair of the permanent Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, I have the great honour and pleasure of presenting three reports to the House of Commons today.

    First, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, entitled “Impacts of Artificial Intelligence on the Creative Industries”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to the report.

    Second, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, in relation to Bill S-227, an act respecting Arab heritage month. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment.

    Third, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, in relation to Bill S-210, an act respecting Ukrainian heritage month. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment.

    It is clearly a very busy and very productive committee.

    Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Conservatives who sit on the Canadian heritage committee, I would like to offer a dissenting report that we did in heritage on AI. I offer that to us today. We had an extensive meeting but, over the course of weeks, we had some concerns with the report that is coming out.

    Mr. Speaker, as chair of the immigration and citizenship committee, I am presenting two reports today.

    I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, entitled “Reconstituting Canada’s International Student Program”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

    In addition, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, in relation to the motion adopted on Wednesday, March 25, regarding Canada's immigration system.

    Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(b), I rise as a member of the official opposition supporting the dissenting opinion appended to the report. We found that the government failed to consult communities on whether they could sustainably handle the massive influx of international students. While institutions collected record profits, international students were left at food banks and suffering from the heightened local housing crisis their large numbers were causing.

    The lack of oversight from the government has recently come to light in the Auditor General's report, which found that the government investigated only 2.6% of the 153,000 suspected cases of international student fraud.

    For these reasons, our recommendations include, among others, one, that international study permit approval be tied directly to regional housing availability, health care capacity and employment; two, that there be stronger language proficiency requirements to ensure student success; and three, that financial liability for institutions should be established when students overstay or file asylum claims.

    I ask that the dissenting report opinion be appended to the committee report.

     moved for leave to introduce Bill C-273, an act to amend the Feeds Act, the Fertilizers Act, the Seeds Act, the Pest Control Products Act, and the Food and Drugs Act.

     He said: Mr. Speaker, the people of Alberta did not send me here to sit quietly while farms are run out of business by bureaucrats in Ottawa. Farmers sent me here to fix what is broken. Today, I am introducing the FARM act, a simple and practical way to make life better for Canadian farmers and more affordable for every family that depends on them.

    For years, our farmers have been buried under layers of red tape, rules that do not make sense, delays that cost them money and barriers that keep them from using the same safe, proven tools their competitors already rely on in the United States, the EU, the U.K., Australia and New Zealand. Meanwhile, our farmers are told to wait: to wait for approvals, to wait for reviews and to wait while their costs climb and their yields fall. That is not protecting Canadians. That is holding them back. When farmers fall behind, Canadians feel it at the grocery store.

     The FARM act would change that. It would create a trusted system where products are already approved by at least two of our closest allies and can be made available to Canadian farmers within 90 days. That is not years but days. Canadian reviews still happen, safety remains paramount and the minister will retain the authority to step in if there are concerns. This bill gives ranchers in Strathmore the medications they need to keep their herds healthy. It gives potato farmers in P.E.I. the inputs they need to produce more food. There is no new bureaucracy and no new spending, just common sense. It was written by a farmer for my colleagues in the field. It means stronger yields, lower costs, more food produced right here at home and stronger rural communities. It means some relief for Canadians who are tired of watching their grocery bills climb higher.

    Canadian farmers are the best in the world. They need the government to get out of the way so they can grow food for families.

    Mr. Speaker, I have multiple petitions to present today.

    The petitioners in Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford recognize that the total cost of regulation to Canadian businesses has reached $51.5 billion, with $17.9 billion of that for red tape alone. Small businesses have spent an average of 735 hours per year complying with regulatory requirements that provide little or no public benefit. Small businesses pay over five times more per employee than large firms to comply with regulation, making unnecessary red tape a major barrier to growth and a drag on Canada's productivity and competitiveness.

    The petitioners therefore call upon the Government of Canada to immediately review and eliminate redundant regulations and overlapping requirements that disproportionately harm small businesses.

    Mr. Speaker, the second petition I would like to present today is on behalf of residents of Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford who are raising concerns about individuals linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a listed terrorist organization in Canada. The petitioners warn that such actors threaten national security and may be operating within Canada. They also note that sanctions and the closure of Canada's embassy in Iran have delayed immigration applications and prolonged family separation. They call upon the Government of Canada to enforce its designation of the IRGC by investigating and removing affiliated individuals where warranted, freezing linked assets and expediting immigration processes for affected Iranian nationals while supporting the Iranian people and protecting democratic values.

    Mr. Speaker, it is an honour today to table this petition on behalf of petitioners who are part of the peace train movement. They highlight that for lasting peace, military deterrence must take place within the context of long-term solutions identified through research and analysis.

    They also note that, within its NATO funding commitment, Canada can and should establish a national centre dedicated to peacebuilding and should contribute much more funding, training, equipment and personnel to UN peacekeeping, and that Canada's pre-eminent free institutions dedicated to peacebuilding have been terminated, including the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre and the Canadian Institute for Peace and Human Security. They point to a national defence report that recommends that the Government of Canada re-establish the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre with a mandate that includes, but is not limited to, conflict research, conflict prevention, mediation and civilian protection.

     Lastly, they recommend that the Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association also advocate for the re-establishment of the former peacekeeping centre.

    The petitioners' call to action is to establish and fund, as a fundamental part of Canada's increasing commitment to defence and security, an independent Canadian centre for peace dedicated to peacekeeping and global security through research, education, policy and training in conflict resolution, diplomacy and peace operations for Canadian civilians, police and military personnel, and the international community.

     As members can imagine, this is a timely petition given the global conflict that we are enduring right now.

    Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present petition e-7104, with over 700 signatures.

     The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to establish a comprehensive legal framework to protect minors from predatory drug dealers; to monitor social media, target online trafficking and require social media companies to implement policies to prevent it; to enact a federal law against child criminal exploitation based on the approach of the United Kingdom's crime and policing bill; and to empower and require police to thoroughly and effectively investigate all reports of drug trafficking and criminal exploitation involving minors, and to provide witness protection when needed.

     Sixty per cent of all illicit drug users in Canada are young people aged 15 to 24, and drug overdose is the leading cause of death among youth ages 10 to 18 in several Canadian provinces.

    Mr. Speaker, my first petition is being presented on behalf of citizens and residents across Canada who are calling on the government to reverse the planned cuts of 665 AAFC staff and closures of the organic and regenerative research program at the Swift Current office and the Lacombe, Guelph, Quebec City, Indian Head, Scott, Portage la Prairie and Nappan research facilities that serve our agriculture industry.

    Mr. Speaker, the second petition that I am presenting today is in regard to Bill C-9.

    I have many petitions on this issue, which has passed from this House to the other place. I have been requested to continue to present them because the bill will come back. The petitioners are hoping that this particular concern around the ability of all scriptures for all religions in our country to be protected as they are supposed to be is addressed and that, in the future when the House on the other side is doing the research, it will truly do its job and have the witnesses and stakeholders that will present what we hope will bring what Canadians want, an end to Bill C-9.

    Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

     Is that agreed?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    [For text of questions and responses, see Written Questions website]

     moved:

     He said: Mr. Speaker, I am going to be splitting my time with the member for York—Durham.

    The great Winston Churchill once said, “The idea that a nation can tax itself into prosperity is one of the crudest delusions which has ever fuddled the human mind.” After more than 10 years of the Liberal government, life has become miserable for Canadians, more unaffordable and unsafe than ever in the history of this country. Families are struggling just to get by, and they cannot afford even the basic necessities. They are just looking for a break.

    Recently, the Liberal Prime Minister said that he is trying to find ways to save on gas. Well, we presented an idea. We put the solution in front of him: Remove all federal fuel taxes temporarily for Canadians, to save them money at the pump. From what I understand, the Prime Minister did what a typical Liberal would do and just recently took our idea, but he did not take the whole idea. He took only parts of the idea. Our goal was to save on the GST, the excise tax and, of course, the Liberals' hidden carbon tax repackaged as the clean fuel standard, which will go up. This would have saved Canadians 25¢ per litre at the pump.

    We have to look at what is going on right now. Of course there are external factors that all countries are facing. Everyone is facing those same factors, but we have to look at why Canadians are paying, at a minimum, 20¢ per litre more than Americans are for fuel. The difference is the federal fuel taxes, so we put this solution in front of the Liberals, but, again, they did not implement it fully. Canadians would have saved 25¢ per litre for gas at the pump. Not just everyday Canadians would save money. It would help our farmers. It would help our transporters. It would help in many different ways.

    It could also help bring down the cost of food. We know that after 10 years under the Liberals, Canadians are faced with the highest food inflation in the entire G7. Canadians have the highest household debt in the entire G7. We know that Canadians are struggling, because 2.2 million Canadians going to a food bank every single month is not a statistic that anyone should brag about. The cost of food is out of control in this country, and the solutions Conservatives are proposing would help to lower the cost of food and of everyday life for Canadians. Overall, they would also save Canadians $1,200 on gas just this year. That is a significant savings.

     Even when people go to the grocery store, they can feel the difference when they are there. Not that long ago, people could get by for a week on 100 dollars' worth of groceries. One hundred dollars gets them nowhere these days under the Liberals, because they made the cost of food so expensive. Their industrial carbon tax, their clean fuel standard, which they refuse to drop, is making life more expensive. It makes food more expensive. That is why there is so much food insecurity.

     In my riding of Calgary East, the Salvation Army does amazing work. It just reported a 500% increase in the usage of its food security program. That 500% increase is because the cost of food keeps going up. These are not numbers or statistics about which anyone should say, “Is that really a first world country where 2.2 million Canadians are going to a food bank every single month?”

     Canadians are overtaxed. In fact, Canadians pay more in taxes than they do for food, shelter and clothing, in other words necessities, combined. That is the result of overspending, overprinting money and flooding the market with cheap cash. Who benefits from that? It is always Liberal insiders. For example, there is the $90-billion boondoggle called the Alto high-speed rail project. The finance minister has a supposed conflict of interest in that too, and it would be wealthy Liberal insiders who would get contracts and money from those contracts. They are the only ones who would get rewarded. Who gets left with the bill? It is Canadians. Everyday Canadians have to face the reality of the corrupt Liberal government.

    The clean fuel standard is also a tax on everything. As I said before, the farmers who are growing our food, the shippers who are transporting our food, and even the people who are storing the food all get hit with either the clean fuel standard or the industrial carbon tax, or both. Sometimes this is in hidden ways, but these costs do not stay just with the farmers and the shippers. They actually get put into the cost of the food at the end of the day. Canadians who are buying the food and are seeing food costs out of control are the ones who have to pay these costs, and it is always Liberal insiders who get to benefit from these costs.

     The Liberals do not have any control over what they are doing with Canadians' finances. In fact we thought Justin Trudeau was Canada's worst money manager, but the Prime Minister said, “Hold my champagne. I can do much worse.” He doubled Justin Trudeau's deficit, if we can believe that. It is something we thought no one could do. It was item number one once he became Prime Minister.

     Removing the GST, the excise tax and the carbon tax 2.0, the clean fuel standard, would help the truckers and the farmers. It would help the cost of food go down. That is why Conservatives are proposing this: We know that Canadians are struggling with the cost of food. We all hear it in our ridings from moms who have to choose between less nutritious food or no food that week. Some of them are starving, just so their kids can eat. These are the choices Canadians are having to make. Seniors are having to make these choices too. There are people in food bank lines who had never used a food bank in their life. They used to proudly volunteer at the food banks, and now they are standing in line for food.

     That is the result of the Liberal government. It is increasing costs, and there is no looking back for the Liberals. They will increase the industrial carbon tax and will increase the clean fuel standard, and this is only going to make things more expensive for Canadians.

     The Liberals will argue that it might leave a hole in their budget. We are surprised that they would even care about that, with all the money they print and spend. However, if we implemented the removal of the fuel taxes federally, there would be more savings for Canadians and less of a downfall in how much the government would collect in revenues. This would be a win-win for everybody. Most importantly, it would be a win for those families that are struggling after 10 years of Liberal government.

     We need to get our economy up and running again. We need to make Canada what it used to be, a safe and affordable country, which after 10 years under Liberal governments it has not been. It has become a joke around the world. We need to get our resources to market. We need to get rid of the industrial carbon tax and remove Bill C-69 so we can get projects built in this country.

    We need to remove Bill C-48, the tanker ban, which does not let our product leave the west coast for Asian markets. We need to get rid of the clean fuel standard and every single one of the red tape policies that have stopped anything from getting built in this country. We need to get our country back on track so we can be sovereign, independent and an energy superpower once again. That is something only the Conservatives would do.

     Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to my colleague's speech, and I would like to inform him that literally as we speak, the Prime Minister is announcing a historic break for Canadians, a summer break from excise taxes on diesel, jet fuel and gasoline. That follows the incredibly generous and necessary groceries and essentials benefit that was previously introduced. The government is putting in place solid measures to give Canadians a break and to make life more affordable. That follows on a number of other initiatives.

     I would just ask the member this: Does he not have anything good to say about the affordability measures put in place by the government?

    Mr. Speaker, it seems as if the government House leader just got here, because I just addressed that.

    Once again, in typical Liberal fashion, the Liberals stole our idea, but they did not steal all of it. They took only a part of it. In fact they did not get rid of the clean fuel standard and did not get rid of the industrial carbon tax, and we are even calling for the GST to be removed, which would be a savings of 25¢ per litre. However, like typical Liberals, they did only half the work and half measures, but that is what they are known for.

    It does not really matter to the Liberals, because everything is politics for them. Right now they can make this announcement, but their clean fuel standard is still in place, which will make food more expensive. Canadians will not get a break at the grocery store whatsoever, and the break at the pump could have been a lot bigger if they had just implemented the Conservative plan fully.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if my colleague has accounted for the impact of these measures on the environment and the deficit. It has been estimated that this would increase the deficit by about $7 billion.

    Mr. Speaker, in fact the impact on the deficit would be a lot less than the revenues they are taking in. This would actually be a benefit, and at the end of the day, that benefit would go to Canadians. Canadians would see a direct impact at the pump, and it would directly help lower the cost of food.

    There are many different reasons we proposed the idea. It is too bad the Liberals once again did not implement the whole idea. They stole just a small portion of it. Once again, it is just politics to them.

    Mr. Speaker, I just hosted four town halls in my riding on the cost of living and affordability, and I brought this very idea that the Conservatives are proposing to the people at those town halls. Nearly unanimously, people there wanted the taxes removed temporarily to provide relief. However, it was also unanimous that the people at those town halls wanted the big oil and gas companies, which are posting record profits, to pick up the tab. Attendees agreed that the relief needs to happen, but it should not be at the expense of investments in roads, infrastructure and health.

    When will the Conservative and Liberal coalition for corporate welfare end? What is the threshold on corporate profits for big oil and gas before the Conservatives and Liberals will ask them to pay a little bit more when they win so they can take the pressure off everyday Canadians and pay their fair share for once?

    Mr. Speaker, it is interesting, because I held a town hall in my riding as well last week. I overwhelmingly heard about how the Liberals have caused the cost of living crisis and about how my constituents would like federal fuel taxes removed as well, which would help them at the pump and, of course, at the grocery store.

    Where we differ, and where the Liberals have held Canada back from growth, is that if we want to properly fund our roadways and properly fund social services, we need a good and booming resource sector, which is something the Liberals have refused to do. In fact by keeping our resources in the ground, not only have we become more dependent but the world has also become worse off because it does not have good, clean, low-carbon energy from Canada. That is good-paying jobs and a good economy, which could help contribute to those roads and social services that my colleague is talking about.

     Mr. Speaker, I got up this morning and called home, as I do each day I am here in Ottawa away from my family, as I am sure many do. I asked, “What's the price of gasoline this morning? What's the price of diesel?” In my part of Ontario, just north of the GTA, it is ranging anywhere from about 165.9 to 175.9 for regular to around two dollars for diesel fuel. That is in Uxbridge, Port Perry, Cannington, Beaverton in Brock township and, of course, Sutton and Keswick in Georgina, which are all in my riding.

    Here we are. The reality is that we have diesel that is about two dollars and $1.75 gasoline in a country that sits on the fourth-largest reserve of conventional and unconventional oil and gas. It should be a time when Canada is benefiting from instability in the world; instead, we are suffering because of it.

    The war in Iran has certainly caused a spike in oil prices. It is one cause of what we are seeing at the pumps, but the other cause is, of course, self-inflicted. It is 10 years of policies from the government, whether it is old or new. Regardless of what they call it, the Liberals have been consistent, at least, in wanting to keep our resources in the ground. They would rather see Canadians starve, freeze and lose their jobs for some figment of an environmental ideology. The result is that we have two-dollar diesel and $1.75 gasoline.

    Of course, we also do not have enough infrastructure. We do not have refineries. We do not have enough pipelines. We do not have a pipeline from east to west, so we cannot even get our resources to our own people. That is why places in my part of the country and further east, instead of utilizing Canadian energy, are importing energy from places around the world that none of us would want to vacation in. For example, there is Saudi Arabia, where, of course, women have no rights, but we are funding its regime to the tune of billions of dollars by importing its oil rather than consuming our own, from Canadians who have hard-working jobs and high pay and from where our industries have high environmental standards.

     On top of these policy choices, what is worse in this whole situation, is that we clobber Canadians with taxes. We keep resources in the ground. We buy higher at world prices than it would cost to consume our own, and to add insult to injury, we clobber Canadians with taxes on top of that.

    Depending on where people live in this country, taxes on fuel will range from 40¢ to around 60¢ per litre. That is combined federal and provincial taxes. Colleagues need to bear with me as I am going to go through them. It might take a while, but here we go. There is a provincial excise tax; local consumer carbon taxes if people are in certain parts of British Columbia; transit taxes, again, if people are in certain parts of British Columbia; provincial sales taxes; the federal excise tax; the federal sales tax; the clean fuel regulations tax; and the industrial carbon tax.

    If colleagues were keeping track, that was quite a list, but one of the ironies of all these taxes is that the Liberals have, for months, called them imaginary. Every time I have asked a question on the clean fuel regulations or the industrial carbon tax, the government House leader, who just spoke, will get up to say that these are imaginary taxes.

    Well, today, let us take two that the Liberals have said are imaginary. The industrial carbon tax was and remains a flagship Liberal policy. In fact, if we go back to read the Liberals budget from the fall, it mentions the industrial carbon tax at least nine times and, in fact, has a promise to increase that industrial carbon tax in the future. Indeed, how imaginary is that?

     Next are the clean fuel regulations or the clean fuel standards tax. That is a real law. It is not imaginary. We can go on the justice laws website and look up the clean fuel regulations. In fact, the government has a dedicated web page for those regulations, so those are anything but imaginary.

    It is because of that uncertainty and because of the cost for families that we are today proposing, as the Conservative Party, as the official opposition, to remove all of the federal taxes on fuel. We have estimated that that would save Canadians about $20 every time they fill up at the pump and about $1,200 from now until the end of the year.

    We would pay for that by using some of the profits that the government will be reaping in with its higher revenue from higher oil prices, because of course we know that, as oil prices go up, provincial and federal governments take in more tax revenue. We have estimated that we could pay for our proposal with about $5 billion of the approximately $9 billion that will be taken in through higher oil revenues in this country. We would be using existing resources and not adding to the debt or deficit.

    We have suggested removing four federal taxes, proposing to suspend the federal excise tax until the end of the year, suspend the GST on gas and diesel until the end of the year and eliminate both of the clean fuel regulations, the clean fuel standards tax and the industrial carbon tax. In my view, all of these are necessary. Each one by itself is simply insufficient to provide any real relief to families. I know the Prime Minister, just a few moments ago, announced not even a half-measure, maybe a one-eighth measure, to remove only the federal excise tax and only until September.

    Let me put that into context. The plan we have proposed would save about 20¢ to 25¢ a litre. What the Prime Minister proposed today is just the federal excise tax, which is 10¢ per litre on regular gasoline and four cents per litre on diesel. That is less than half of what we have proposed and for about half of the time that we have proposed it for. I will comment just on the diesel as an example. Many companies, as we have seen reported in the media, are announcing fuel surcharges to deal with higher fuel prices. Taking four cents off a litre is not going to change corporate decision-making on that. Our proposal is 25¢ or about $1,200 a year. The Liberal proposal is 10¢ cents or four cents, just a few dollars, and not even until the end of the year.

    The irony now is that, after this week's events, the Liberals will have all the power in the world to take all the most ambitious measures they want. After the events of this week, last week and prior weeks, the Liberals will have a majority in the House of Commons, so they could implement more ambitious measures with ease.

    I think the media has been very disingenuous over the last evening and the last week. It was not the elections last night that gave the Liberals a majority. It was a handful of members of Parliament, including four previous Conservative members of Parliament, who made the decision to leave their party and join another. Despite my best efforts, I have been unable to locate any real issue of substance that would justify the member for Acadie—Annapolis's crossing or the crossing of any of the other three prior Conservative members.

    Leaving a caucus might be understandable if there were an issue of principle for which the floor crosser stood, but there is none. There is no issue of conscience, no fundamental break of faith, just raw opportunism. Even statements by each of the members who made that decision reveal nothing really of substance. In the case of the member for Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, she simply made a reference to people telling her in the grocery store that they liked the Prime Minister.

    I certainly like you, Mr. Speaker, and other members in the House, but I would not cross the floor for you.

    In the case of the member for Markham—Unionville, he just made a vague reference to unity and decisive action. What decisive action? We have been here a year since the Prime Minister was elected. In the case of the member for Acadie—Annapolis, he simply said it was for a better path forward. I would invite him to explain what that path forward is, but I do not think he has the political courage to do so. In the case of the member for Edmonton Riverbend, he was simply and clearly smitten with the Prime Minister's speech in Davos.

    None of those statements reflect any real issues of substance, and that is the problem. That is what Canadians smell. Canadians are not dupes. They smell the rank hypocrisy of the members of our caucus who left, the former members of the Conservative Party. The reason people take an action matters. The reason people do something, the justification they have or, in the case of these members, when they do not have justification, matters. That is why Canadians are so upset with these floor crossings, because there is no substance behind them.

    Mr. Speaker, let us come back to the Conservative Party motion because that is what we are here to debate. As usual, the motion contains several points. In fact, we agree with some of them, as our Prime Minister has said.

    No matter what the issue is, Conservatives always bring up the industrial carbon tax, as if getting rid of it were some kind of magic cure. If we get rid of it, everything will be fine afterward. How can the member justify calling for the cancellation of the industrial carbon tax again when it has been shown that this tax currently has no impact on the price of fuel?

    Mr. Speaker, it is not magic; it is just mathematics. When taxes are removed, it lowers the price of things in this country. This is why our plans, all four of them, were estimated to lower the price of gasoline by about 25¢. It is not magic. The Liberals just need add up the numbers and remove the taxes to get a better outcome for Canadians.

    I do not disagree with some of the things they have done, but they need to do more. They need to do them all. I ask them to not take a half-measure when they can clearly go the whole way and give full relief.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to expand a bit on what my colleague said. The industrial carbon tax has no impact on prices at the pump. Ultimately, this is a gift in disguise to the oil companies, a gift disguised as support for the public, but it will not have any effect. It will just help the oil companies, which are already making billions of dollars in profits.

     Mr. Speaker, I guess we simply have a disagreement on this. I think it is common sense that if we tax businesses in the production of their goods or services, they will pass that cost on to the consumer who buys their goods or services. If a farmer has to pay an additional cost to buy fertilizer or to buy a piece of equipment, that will find its way into the products we buy at the grocery store. The industrial carbon tax raises the cost of food and fuel, and that cost is paid by consumers. It is as simple as that.

     Mr. Speaker, my colleague laid out some very common-sense principles. Inputs increase pricing, and if we control the inputs, we can give people relief. More importantly, he spent a part of his speech talking about principle and why in the House we must adhere to our principles. I was wondering if the member could take this opportunity to elaborate on that.

    Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Vaughan—Woodbridge was in the manufacturing industry himself, and he knows a thing or two about keeping a budget and keeping costs. He also knows a thing or two about principle. I have come to know him, and he is a man of principle, unlike some of the others who were formerly in our caucus.

    On this side of the House, our principle is about providing relief to Canadians. That is what this opposition motion is about, and we estimate that the suite of measures would reduce the price of fuel taxes by about 25%, which would save families $1,200 a year. That is a principle that I hope all members of the House will support.

     Before I go to questions and comments, I am going to caution the member to be judicious in the comments he makes. We do not want to impugn the motives of any member of the House.

    We have time for a quick question from the member for Courtenay—Alberni.

     Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada highlighted yesterday that inequality is skyrocketing even more, with the bottom 40% only holding 3% of the wealth and the top 20% holding two-thirds of the wealth. This is at a time when the big banks have posted $70 billion in profits. For the top big five oil companies, it is almost $25 billion. The top five grocery stores have gone from $2.4 billion in profits to $6.3 billion.

    At what point, or at what level, would there be a threshold between the Conservatives and Liberals where they will charge an excess profit tax on the big corporations or a wealth tax on individuals so they are moving forward with tackling inequality in this country? This measure alone would not do that. It would actually push the deficits, and the investments in infrastructure and health that would help those people, down the road.

    Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his concern for those who can least afford government taxes. He will know, and I know he will agree, that things such as the industrial carbon tax and the clean fuel regulation are sometimes the most pernicious of taxes because they put the burden on people who can least afford to pay more. Those are the lower-income people who have no choice but to pay more to go to work to buy groceries, so they are harmed the most by some of these taxes. This is in part why our proposal says to give them some relief. Let us give the Canadians who need it the most some relief.

    Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this important debate. I will be sharing my time with the member for Cumberland—Colchester.

     Our government knows how difficult it is for some Canadians to cover their day-to-day costs. Making life more affordable has always been a core priority of this government. More pressingly, we know that a significant pressure on household budgets is the cost of fuel. Recent events in the Middle East, including the partial blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, have led to a global spike in oil prices, and Canadian families are feeling the impacts. That is why I am pleased to be able to say that today the Prime Minister announced further action to help Canadians manage these challenges.

    As the Prime Minister made clear, Canada's new 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 until Labour Day, September 7, 2026, delivering over $2.3 billion in relief to Canadians at a time when they need it the most. This temporary suspension of excise taxes for gasoline and diesel is expected to save Canadians up to an estimated $5.75 on regular gasoline and up to $2.30 on diesel when filling up a typical 50-litre tank of fuel.

    This is a serious moment in our nation's history, and it deserves serious leadership and consideration. The announcement made earlier today by the Prime Minister reflects that. The Conservative motion today, on the other hand, is, unfortunately, anything but serious. Canadians expect and deserve more than “back of the napkin” math. Let us look at some of the issues with the Conservative motion.

    Oil prices, as we know, are highly volatile and highly unpredictable. We know that recent events have led to a global spike in prices, but we also know that it is difficult to forecast what will happen six, eight or 12 months down the road. Conservatives are arguing that the current price per barrel will generate an additional $9 billion to $10 billion in government revenues. This assumption is based on the price per barrel staying the same between now and the new year. The Conservative plan is based on forecasts that are optimistic at best.

    Moreover, the Conservatives are allowing their ambivalence toward environmental action to overshadow a reasonable approach to the environment and the economy. They know that the clean fuel regulations do not add to the price Canadians pay at the pump. They know that an industrial carbon price makes us more competitive in a lower-emissions global economy. They are intentionally conflating these issues instead of focusing on what matters to Canadians.

    This measure builds on one of the very first actions we took as a government, which also lowered costs at the pump. One of the first things we did was to eliminate the federal consumer fuel charge, effective April 1, 2025. Our government removed the consumer carbon price on gasoline, diesel and home-heating fuels while ensuring that Canadians received the final rebate during the transition. At the same time, we preserved carbon pricing for large industrial emitters, focusing emissions reductions where they are the most effective, while easing cost pressures on households and maintaining a strong, competitive economy.

    I can assure members that we have been working tirelessly to address cost of living challenges experienced by too many households across this country, and we are absolutely delivering for Canadians. We have presented ambitious plans to reposition Canada for a far better future, but of course, this will take some time.

    We know that Canadians need immediate relief, and we are delivering. Let me take a moment to highlight some of our recent actions to address housing affordability in Canada.

    Put simply, we need to build more homes. We recently introduced Bill C-26, which will help unlock new housing across Canada. Bill C-26 will deliver a federal investment of $1.7 billion to provinces and territories so they can implement measures to boost the housing supply. These funds can help reduce development fees or levies on new home construction. They can also make incremental investments in existing provincial and territorial programs that are dedicated to building more homes.

    We are also enabling more homebuilding across the country with investments in infrastructure that Canadians rely on every day. Earlier this month, the Prime Minister officially launched the build communities strong fund, a $51-billion investment to help build essential infrastructure projects, including hospitals, universities, roads and bridges, and water and transit systems.

    Investment in housing-enabling infrastructure under this program will help accelerate the right housing-related infrastructure needed to support housing growth. To access funds for infrastructure related to housing and post-secondary education, provinces will also need to show a commitment to reducing development charges where those charges pose a significant barrier to new construction. Provinces and territories will also need to commit to not levying other taxes that hinder housing supply to encourage housing development.

    We have also eliminated the goods and services tax for first-time buyers on homes valued up to $1 million, and we reduced the GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes between $1 million and $1.5 million. We will build faster and smarter thanks to the launch of Build Canada Homes, a new federal agency that will drive investment and public-private co-operation.

    In addition to housing, we are working to provide Canadians with relief from the financial squeeze of everyday expenses. We all know that one of the areas that stresses Canadians the most is the cost of groceries. Food costs have gone up far too quickly in this country. Our government's new Canada groceries and essentials benefit will help more than 12 million low- and modest-income Canadians afford day-to-day necessities.

    We have also cut taxes for the middle class. Since July 1, 2025, Canadians have been paying less tax after the government announced lowering of the first marginal personal income tax rate from 15% to 14%. This change will ensure that nearly 22 million Canadians benefit from tax relief of up to $420 per person, saving two-income families up to $840 a year.

    A more affordable Canada also means a more competitive Canada. As members can see, we are delivering. At a time when many Canadians are feeling the pressure of rising costs, our government remains focused on what matters the most: supporting people and easing financial strains wherever we can. We can take practical, responsible and pragmatic actions to help families afford the essentials, strengthen household financial security and ensure that economic growth works for everyone. Every decision we take should be guided by a simple principle: to stand with Canadians, protect their well-being and help build a more stable and resilient future for communities across the country.

    With the results of the by-elections last night, we have a choice. We can all work together across party lines to continue to make things better for Canadians, or we can hear diatribes directed against former colleagues, personal attacks against other members of Parliament, and not work together.

    As Canadians and as elected officials from all political parties, we have the opportunity to continue working together in committee and in the House. I truly hope that, as parliamentarians who represent our communities and who are concerned about affordability, we will be able to take a practical look at what we can do together.

    I thank the House very much for giving me the time, and I look forward to the questions from my colleagues.

     Mr. Speaker, I find it concerning that the member called our motion “unserious” when clearly it is serious enough that the Prime Minister just had a press conference on it. What I find unserious is that he took his time and, instead of talking about gas taxes and how to save Canadians money at the pumps, he just talked about housing most of the time.

    Does he believe that Canadians should get relief at the pumps, yes or no?

    Mr. Speaker, given that the first four minutes of my speech dealt with fuel prices, I would say of course, which is why we are removing the excise tax. The excise tax has been in place since the 1990s, and we are taking the proactive step based on the current worldwide oil prices to cut that. The excise tax is 10¢ per litre for regular people buying standard gasoline. This will no longer be the case from next week until Labour Day. Of course we are sensitive to the issue. What I was talking about was all of the different things in the Conservative motion that were not things that should be done.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the fact that the Conservative measures do not take Quebec's system into account. Quebec has its own carbon tax system, namely the carbon market. That means that Quebec ended up funding measures for the other provinces. What does my colleague think about respecting Quebec's jurisdictions and providing compensation when Quebec's jurisdictions are infringed upon?

    One example of that is the vote-buying cheques that were sent to all of the provinces except British Columbia and Quebec to provide a carbon tax refund after the tax had already been abolished. Should British Columbia and Quebec not be compensated for that?

    Mr. Speaker, I will start by answering the question that was asked at the beginning of my colleague's speech. Yes, I believe that some proposals in the Conservative motion are unrealistic.

    These proposals do not consider the environment and its importance. They also do not take into account the fact that the costs they are trying to eliminate have nothing to do with the price at the pump, as my hon. colleague said earlier.

     Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague for his very thoughtful and insightful presentation on the motion before us.

    The global economy has been grappling with higher gas prices resulting from ongoing conflicts in the Middle East and the partial closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Could you elaborate on how it impacts gas prices in Canada?

    Again, I remind members to address their comments through the Chair.

    The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.

     Mr. Speaker, as my friend knows, global gas prices are driven by global supply and demand. When some of the leading producers in the world are unable to ship oil to markets, the price goes up. When we have instability, the price goes up. When the President of the United States makes certain announcements, the price goes up. Global oil prices are completely unstable, which has led to an increase as a result of the conflict and the inability to deliver oil to market from certain of the most important producing regions in the world. As such, prices in Canada and around the world have gone up.

    What we need to do is give temporary relief, as we have done. Today, the Prime Minister announced that the excise tax is being cut until Labour Day.

    Mr. Speaker, basically, right now oil prices are very high, and that means the government is bringing in tons and tons of money. In light of that, young people are seeing this and asking why the government will not do the full recommendation from the Conservative Party, because it can certainly afford to do that and not make it even more difficult for young people who are facing these challenges as constituents of Canada.

    Mr. Speaker, one of the things the Conservatives are assuming in their motion is that the cost of oil will remain the same for the rest of the year, but the price of oil fluctuates constantly. The $9 billion to $10 billion that the Conservatives claim is going to be collected by the government depends on oil prices not falling over the next nine months.

    Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to today's debate, particularly as we navigate a period of geopolitical volatility and significant change. Disruptions to global energy infrastructure caused by ongoing military conflicts in the Middle East are driving higher fuel costs, creating economic uncertainty for families in Canada and across the world.

    While governments cannot control global events, I can assure my hon. colleagues that Canada is doing what it takes to support Canadians facing the financial effects of this and other crises, not only because we know it is the right thing to do, but because we want more Canadians to be able to support their families and contribute to our country's long-term national prosperity.

    As I just mentioned, higher fuel prices driven by global conflicts are adding stress to household budgets in Canada and across the globe. That is why today we are taking further action to help Canadians manage these challenges, as was just announced by the Prime Minister.

    Canada's new 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 Monday, April 20, 2026, until September 7, 2026, delivering over $2.2 billion in relief.

    This temporary suspension of excise taxes for gasoline and diesel is expected to save Canadians up to an estimated $5.75 on regular gasoline and up to $2.30 on diesel when filling up a typical 50-litre tank of fuel. Now folks will have no reason not to come visit my beautiful home province of Nova Scotia this summer.

    Today's announcement is just the latest measure our government has announced to help Canadians manage affordability concerns and build a stronger future for everyone.

    Since taking office, our government has taken considerable, concrete and targeted steps to put more money in Canadians' pockets. My hon. colleagues will recall that one of the first things the Prime Minister did last year was to cancel the consumer fuel charge, directly allowing Canadians to save money from the price they were paying at the pump. Our government also removed the requirement for provinces and territories to have a consumer-facing carbon price as of April 1, 2025, at that time.

    Our middle-class tax cut, which lowered the first marginal personal income tax rate from 15% to 14% since July 1, 2025, will save two-income families up to $840 in 2026. Going forward, it is expected to deliver over $27 billion in tax savings to Canadians over the next five years. What is more, the bulk of tax relief will go to those with incomes in the two lowest tax brackets, that is, those with taxable income under $117,045 in 2026, including nearly half to those in the first bracket, $58,523 and below in 2026. This means the relief is effectively targeted at those Canadians who need help most.

    By eliminating the GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes at or under $1 million and reducing it for first-time homebuyers on new homes between $1 million and $1.5 million, our government is also saving first-time homebuyers up to $50,000, making the goal of home ownership a reality for more Canadians, especially young Canadians.

    Moreover, we tabled budget 2025, “Canada Strong”, which includes numerous affordability supports for people across the country. For example, we made the national school food program permanent, a program that helps 400,000 more children each year receive healthy meals every day, while saving families with two children $800 per year on groceries. By making it permanent, we will work with provinces, territories and indigenous partners to expand the program into more schools across Canada.

    The budget also proposes to start automatically delivering federal benefits to low-income Canadians. That includes the GST credit and the Canada child benefit. We will continue protecting child care, dental care and pharmacare to maintain these essential services so many Canadians depend on.

    Moreover, to support Canadians with the cost of groceries and everyday essentials, which have stretched many Canadians' wallets thin, the government has also announced the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit, which will provide significant support for more than 12 million Canadians. When it becomes available this spring, the CGEB will replace the existing GST credit, but it will also be more generous.

     First, we are providing a one-time top-up payment to be paid as early as possible this spring, equal to a 50% increase in the annual 2025-26 value of the GST credit. Second, we will increase the benefit by 25% for five years, starting in July 2026. Combined, this means that a family of four will receive up to $1,890 this year and about $1,400 a year for the next four years, and a single person will receive up to $950 this year and about $700 a year for the next four years.

    That is not all. Let us listen to this. We also recently took action to put a cap on NSF, non-sufficient funds, fees to make banking fairer and more affordable for Canadians. As of March 2026, consumers cannot be charged more than $10 in NSF fees when they do not have enough money in their personal deposit account to cover a payment. Also, consumers will not be charged an NSF fee more than once in a period of two business days for the same personal deposit account, and consumers will not be charged NSF fees on a personal deposit account when the amount of their overdraft in the account is less than $10.

    To support Canadians amid ongoing global energy market disruptions, we are delivering timely, meaningful and tangible relief through a comprehensive set of actions that will put more money in Canadians' pockets. Canadians need relief. That is clear as day. This government is absolutely delivering for them, as well as for generations of Canadians to come. I am thankful for the opportunity to make my case.

    Mr. Speaker, with respect to the so-called benefits, how could the hon. member possibly square this with our current economic situation? Our unemployment rate is nearly double that of the United States. We just went through one of the worst quarters, at -0.6%. We are one quarter away from a recession, and inflation is on the rise.

    If the Liberals are so great, why are Canadians suffering so much?

    Mr. Speaker, our government is keenly aware of the situation that everyday Canadians find themselves in, and that is why, whether it is through the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, the elimination of carbon pricing for consumers, increased support for first-time homebuyers or measures to increase housing supply through Build Canada Homes, our government continues to work for Canadians to improve affordability.

    Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, it is my opinion that when this government seeks to bring in new initiatives, there are always initiatives that are geared toward those who need them the most, and in particular those who need those supports in times of crisis like this.

    I am wondering if the member can elaborate on what she thinks this government is doing to fulfill that.

    Mr. Speaker, our government is keenly aware of and engaged in what Canadians are dealing with these days. I, myself, have not been immune to being in a poor financial situation and having to rob Peter to pay Paul, as they say.

    I am keenly aware that our government is working to benefit all of our constituents and all of Canada by taking concrete steps to support Canadians through these challenges as we position them for long-term success by building the strongest economy in the G7.

    Mr. Speaker, I want to know what my colleague thinks about the fact that there are a number of Conservative measures that would penalize Quebec because they would lower taxes even though Quebec has its own system, which includes the carbon market.

    Does my colleague not think that, every time such measures are taken, some thought should be given to finding a way to compensate Quebec and respect its areas of jurisdiction?

    Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I am taking French lessons right now, but I will answer the question in English.

     I would encourage the Conservatives to join us in our work to grow our energy exports, protect Canadian workers and improve our competitiveness on the global market.

    Mr. Speaker, this is another illusion that the Prime Minister cares about affordability. For four months, just over four months, he is going to drop taxes by 10¢ on gas and four cents per litre on diesel.

    Will the member support a common-sense solution that delivers real, tangible results to Canadians and support our motion to provide an extra 25¢ of relief for the rest of 2026? Will she do that?

     Mr. Speaker, I would say that the majority of Canadians will be travelling this summer, as it will be the tourist season, and this will be a significant savings for those individuals coming home to visit their friends and relatives this year.

    I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Mirabel, who is also often my friend.

    As we know, gas prices have skyrocketed since the start of Donald Trump's and Israel's war against Iran. The military operation, which began on February 28, led Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz, that handles 20% of global oil. The U.S. forces had anticipated this and warned that it would happen, and it did.

    Today, we are dealing with the Conservative motion, and the Prime Minister just announced that he is suspending the excise tax until Labour Day, which will cost about $2.5 billion. This is a blanket measure, but a targeted one might have been a better idea.

    In today's motion, the Conservatives are proposing a measure with a total annual cost of $13 billion, which would increase the deficit by 20%. Given the current state of public finances, more targeted measures should have been proposed, ones that cost less and have the most impact on the cost of living.

    Furthermore, the calculations in the motion are ridiculous. For example, the motion estimates that eliminating fuel standards would save seven cents per litre. However, that is completely untrue, because with today's high oil prices, biofuels now cost about the same as fossil fuels, so there are no extra savings to be made on that front. This idea that we would save seven cents per litre is far-fetched. I would also like to point out that Quebec has its own standards.

    Basically, what they are proposing here is that, since the price of oil and gas is rising, we should consume more of it. What a brilliant idea.

    In their motion, the Conservatives also propose eliminating the industrial carbon tax. However, as they themselves indirectly acknowledge in their motion, this measure would not even result in a savings of 1¢ per litre. It is nothing more than a gift to the oil companies. Oil companies have production costs, and the price, which is determined globally, is rising. Consequently, oil companies are making more profit, and if we were to eliminate the industrial carbon tax for oil companies, they would receive yet another windfall that would fill the gap and remove any incentive to pollute less. As I said, the price of crude oil depends on global market prices.

     I would caution the government and the Conservatives when it comes to the excise tax. Many experts, including Luc Godbout, believe that this is not the right course of action, even temporarily. A few months ago, Mr. Godbout said that we need to resist the temptation to lower the gas tax for either budget-balancing or environmental reasons. As members know, it will be hard to reinstate this tax later because Canadians will have to absorb the increase. As I said, the government needs to take targeted measures, which are more effective. However, it would seem that both sides of the House would prefer to take broad measures.

    Is it wise to allow as much pollution as there is in Donald Trump's America, in other words, unlimited pollution? As members know, President Trump announced the repeal of the vehicle efficiency standard that has steadily increased vehicle range per gallon, as they say south of the border. In Canada, we refer to the number of litres per kilometre. I would remind members that this standard was introduced well before the government's commitment to address climate change. The corporate average fuel economy program, or CAFE, was adopted in 1975 to make the United States less dependent on foreign oil. At the time, vehicles averaged only 13 miles per gallon. That is why it was introduced.

    Abolishing such a standard encourages manufacturers to sell larger, more polluting vehicles, since selling those vehicles is more lucrative. It also makes industry and consumers more vulnerable to price shocks and oil shocks. In the long run, consumers are the ones who lose out, because Donald Trump's reasoning, like that of the Conservatives today, neglects the savings that come from energy efficiency, in addition to completely ignoring the costs related to health and the environment.

    A few weeks ago, during our last sitting week, the Conservatives proposed removing standards and incentives for the electrification of transportation. The party is against high-speed rail. We are in favour, but with reservations about how the expropriation will be done, considering the safeguards that were removed in Bill C‑15. Through all of this, the Conservatives are trying to keep us completely dependent on oil by opposing any other solution. That is their response to the current skyrocketing prices. It is something to think about.

    American economist Paul Krugman wrote a blog post on this issue today. He points out that soaring oil and gas prices, combined with the threat of shortages, highlights the risks of relying on fossil fuels. He demonstrates that economies that are more reliant on oil and gas have been more impacted by the soaring prices than those that use other sources. I would therefore like to repeat my question: Is the solution to remain reliant on fossil fuels?

    Paradoxically, Krugman explains that while Trump cancelled the previous administration's plan to develop more renewable energy, his adventurism in Iran has sparked a global rush to invest in solar power, wind power and batteries. Where will the world procure most of the renewable energy equipment it seeks? From China. As we know, China is the workshop of the world. Krugman notes that China's manufacturing sector is larger than those of the United States, Japan, Germany and South Korea combined.

    While China is strong in many industries, it is utterly dominant in electrotechnology, the cluster of solar panel, wind turbine, battery and electric vehicle industries at the heart of the renewable energy revolution. Krugman cites the Wall Street Journal, which notes that China's green industrial complex reigns supreme. China accounts for more than 80% of global production in all these sectors, with the exception of wind turbines, where China's share is 60%, with Europe retaining a significant role. China uses most of its production within its own economy. It is designed not only for export, but to reduce its dependence on oil and gas.

    Krugman notes that under President Joe Biden, the United States took much needed steps to develop their own electrotech sectors, notably batteries and electric vehicles. It sought to accelerate the growth of renewable energy in general. However, the Trump administration has cancelled all of Biden's renewable energy programs and is also actively trying to block private commercial investments in this sector. Is that what needs to happen in Canada? That is my question.

    Krugman says that until America frees itself from Trump's obsession with fossil fuels, if it ever does, China's lead in renewable energy production will likely be insurmountable. He concludes that it is nonetheless unfortunate to see the United States self-destruct and yield the most important industry of the future to China. In doing so, the United States is becoming impoverished, falling behind technologically and losing influence in a world rushing toward the energy revolution. In the end, the United States is not simply burning fossil fuels, but also destroying its future.

    That seems to be what is being proposed here and it also seems to correspond to the measures the government is taking in the House. When the government says it wants to be an energy superpower, it is talking about oil and gas. It is forging blindly ahead. Oil is a non‑renewable resource, and climate change is real, whether we like it or not.

    The takeaway from the current crisis is that we urgently need to reduce our dependence on oil and aim for more stable and more sustainable economic development. Europe is choosing that path. We can do the same. As Krugman pointed out, however, the problem is that China is manufacturing everything at the moment.

    However, we could play a role here. Quebec has everything it takes to do so because our strength lies in the new clean economy. We do not have any oil, but we have renewable energy. We have everything it takes to be one of the key links in the new supply chain for states that are working to reduce their dependence on oil and gas. That is where our future lies. We need to support the development of a whole new sector, that of processing the resources that we have already. We need to embrace this shift toward reducing our dependence on oil and gas so that we can compete with China, which already has a huge advantage. However, that is not the choice that Ottawa has made so far. That is not what today's motion is proposing. These are missed opportunities for Quebec.

    The current global context is giving us the opportunity to make the most of Quebec's strengths, to reconnect with our true nature and to act as a bridge between North America and Europe. However, neither the official opposition party nor the current government are promoting that approach.

    Mr. Speaker, it is so interesting that my esteemed colleague quoted Paul Krugman. I am a big fan of his, too. My colleague and I have a number of things in common, and that is just one of them.

    I would like my colleague to tell us more about how the Conservatives seem fixated on clean fuel regulations. Specifically, they want to get rid of those regulations. Does my colleague understand why that is? I do not understand it.

    How does he interpret our colleagues' fixation?

    Mr. Speaker, as economists, I am sure we have a number of passions and topics of conversation in common.

    First, Quebec has its own standards, which means that, if Ottawa were to change its standard, nothing would change in Quebec. Second, the Conservatives have made up this wacky number, seven cents per litre, based on an outdated analysis from when oil prices were lower.

    Now they are putting this out there at a time when oil prices are rising and are equivalent to biofuel prices. Getting rid of that standard would be nothing more than a gift to oil companies, just like getting rid of the industrial carbon tax would boost their bottom line without bringing down the price at the pump. What this really is is lobbying in the interest of the oil industry.

    Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my Bloc Québécois colleague, who gave an excellent speech, in my view. We have a very good MP representing the riding of Joliette—Manawan, and we need more contributions from members like him.

    There is a lot of drama on the Conservative side. It almost seems as though they are blaming the government for the rise in gas prices, when in reality, if we look at the figures and data, the oil companies' operating costs did not go up when the price of a barrel of oil went up. The oil companies simply increased their profits.

    Rather than cutting taxes, are there any other measures that could target oil companies directly?

    Mr. Speaker, we are also dealing with inflation, where people are paying more for everything. There is that element. Also, in the trucking industry, for example, trucks cannot be converted to a different technology overnight. They must continue to be filled with diesel, which is more expensive. Would a measure targeting that aspect have been more effective and less costly?

    I would note that what is being proposed today will cost over $13 billion per year. That is a lot of money, and it will all be added to the deficit. Is that really the most effective solution? We need to work on more targeted measures. The inflation caused by the war started by Donald Trump and his ally Israel is clearly having an impact, but is the solution to adopt measures like this one that will cost a fortune? What it boils down to is, should the deficit be increased? I do not believe it should.

    We clearly need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and maybe find a better way to collect taxes from the oil companies, which are primarily foreign-owned. For every dollar of profit they earn, 75¢ leaves Canada. This merits investigation.

     Mr. Speaker, it is a known fact that the world is using more oil now and will be for the next 40 years. We have the most efficient, environmentally appropriate means of getting oil out of the ground. We have that ability and that resource. However, what I am hearing from people in this House is that they would rather get it from other countries that are not as conscientious as we are about our environment. I know that Quebec itself has a great deal of oil under the ground, but it is choosing not to do that right now, not until it becomes its own nation, I understand.

    Why do the government and these individuals not understand the reality that our government is making incredible money on that oil price right now and it will not—

    I have to give the hon. member a little time to reply.

    The hon. member for Joliette—Manawan has 30 seconds to respond.

    Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to say, but 30 seconds is not enough time to get through it all.

    The current crisis revolves around an oil shortage and rising costs. The answer is not to get even more oil out of the ground, but to reduce our reliance on it. If the member would stop talking long enough to let me answer in the few seconds I have left, I would tell her that the solution is not to rely even more on oil and suffer through the kinds of price spikes we are seeing now. The solution is to make oil a thing of the past. Economist Paul Krugman says that countries that are less oil-dependent are less affected.

    Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Joliette—Manawan for giving an excellent and very informative speech, as usual. His answers to the questions were equally insightful.

    We are here to discuss gas prices, because the situation today is truly troubling, distressing and worrisome for families. One of the reasons we are discussing this issue today, if not the only reason, is President Trump's Iran excursion, to put it politely, which has made the Strait of Hormuz impassable today. Roughly one-fifth of the world's oil and gas transits through the strait and supplies many of our trading partners. This troubling situation is affecting the price of a barrel of oil and has had a knock-on effect on the price at the pump, which recently jumped by $2. We understand why people at home are worried, especially people who have to fill up their cars.

     I also recently looked at some data from Statistics Canada on the price of a litre of unleaded gas at a self-service gas station in the Montreal census metropolitan area for the past 20 years, and I adjusted the data to real 2025 dollars. What is surprising is that, in the long term, the price of gas goes up very little on average. Rising gas prices are not the problem.

    What we are seeing is that the price of gas goes up and down a lot. We know that households are always vulnerable to price increases and price decreases and that they cannot predict those prices and budget for them, which is what worries me. This happened shortly after the pandemic, when gas prices were almost $2 a litre in today's dollars. The government did not suspend the excise tax on gasoline at the time, mainly because there were no Conservatives ready to cross the floor. There was no need to attract them. It was not that important to the government. That is where we are today. We have a problem with fluctuating gas prices.

    I was at committee yesterday with the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin. We heard from experts who said that, over the years, household incomes and real purchasing power have increased for some but not all households. Roughly 75% or 80% of the wealthiest, or least poor, Canadians have seen their incomes rise, while nearly 20% of people in Quebec and Canada have seen their incomes stagnate. Those 20% are the most vulnerable. There is a double phenomenon happening here. First, we have the poorest people, whose incomes are stagnating, who are faced with significant fluctuations in gas prices but still have to fill up their tanks. Then we have the 80% of people whose incomes have increased, while on average and over the long term, gas prices have remained fairly stable overall.

    What is happening with these people, the ones who can cope with these fluctuations? We are in a situation where the number of vehicles is increasing faster than the population and where vehicles' size and fuel consumption have almost doubled over the past 20 or 25 years. Some people with incomes are polluting more and more, yet today, the government is proposing to gift them with a measure made all the worse by what the official opposition is proposing. For people who are less well off, filling up at the gas station puts a strain on their budget.

    Obviously, one plus one equals two. As my colleague from Joliette—Manawan has said, the Conservative Party cannot complain endlessly about the deficit, say that the government cannot balance its budget, and call for a return to a balanced budget while also proposing such measures. Just discussing the substance of the motion undermines their own credibility. Today, the government proposed a temporary measure to suspend the excise tax on gas. Will that help the poorest people, who are grappling with higher gas prices? Perhaps. Is this the best measure? Is it sufficiently targeted? Probably not. Is it going to be a very costly way of redistributing a small amount of money to the poorest households? We will have to wait and see.

    We will also have to see whether oil companies decide to pass on the tax cut to consumers. When people are forced to use their cars to get to work because they do not have access to public transit and cannot afford small electric vehicles, they are extremely vulnerable in the short term. Their demand for gas is fixed, and they are at the oil companies' mercy. There is nothing in the proposals from either side that would protect these people. It seems like the gas stations were the ones getting a handout today.

    The Conservative motion veers back into populism and tries to make people believe that gas prices can be drastically lowered with the snap of a finger. I would urge the Conservatives to be cautious, because we are in a political environment where the Liberal government has turned into a Conservative government. Even the most conservative Conservatives are crossing the floor. They used to table this type of motion to put on a political show, but now, each time they rise to table a motion like this, the government imitates them.

    I do not want anyone listening this morning to imagine that the Prime Minister was concerned about households' purchasing power two days ago. He is concerned about getting Conservative members over to his side. Every time he plays this game, every time the government does something the Conservatives have been calling for, people cross the floor. That is why I urge the Conservatives to be cautious, because they are pushing the Liberal government to become increasingly conservative at their own expense.

    As I said, this is populist. For months, the Conservatives have been saying that the industrial carbon tax should be eliminated to lower the price at the pump. The governor of the central bank, Mr. Macklem, actually told the committee that this tax mainly applies to imported products and would not have any impact on inflation. He practically had to pound his fist on the table in the middle of the committee meeting to get the message through to the Conservatives that if he wanted to lower the cost of living for households, he would look elsewhere. It is important to note that.

    What should be done? Obviously, the focus should be on the households that are the most vulnerable to these fluctuations. That is how a long-term solution will be found. If the government takes temporary measures every time the price of gas fluctuates, instead of adopting long-term measures for the energy transition, the long term will become a long sequence of short-term measures that do not solve the underlying problems, and the most vulnerable households will grow even more vulnerable with every crisis. This is exactly what we are seeing today: a predominance of short‑term policies in Parliament for political gain, though it is true that some households will benefit in this case.

    I want to say one thing. The government previously announced a deficit of $80 billion. A few weeks ago, it added a vote‑buying cheque, which it called the grocery rebate, that represents a total of $4 billion to $5 billion. The measure announced today adds $2.5 billion in new spending. No one has any idea how much public money is being spent anymore. Meanwhile, the real purchasing power of households is also being affected by access to health care and access to education services. We need to increase productivity. We need to support the provinces' ability to provide these services and offer preschool, primary, secondary and university education. The provinces are being squeezed.

    Funds have been allocated for public transit. However, as my colleague, the transport critic, said several times, the money is stuck in Ottawa. That is part of the long-term solution. We need infrastructure. It is clear from the state of our streets that we have an infrastructure problem. The money needs to be transferred to the provinces. What is the point of lowering the price of gas if cars blow a tire every time people drive down a public road? There is a cost associated with that, which affects households.

    I would like to touch on one last thing related to rising gas prices, and that is productivity. Oil and gas are production inputs, and when a shock like the one we are currently experiencing occurs, it has a negative impact on productivity. The Prime Minister and the government keep telling us that we need to increase our productivity. One of the best ways to do that is to stop being so vulnerable to fluctuating oil prices. When oil prices go up, production costs more, we produce less per worker and we are less able to increase wages. That harms investment. The government is in the oil business. Our oil and gas supply is secure. The oil and gas we use is almost exclusively North American. We cannot have a government that talks about productivity and yet continues to make our businesses more vulnerable to fluctuating oil prices.

    I think it is high time that this Parliament started thinking about the long term. I was elected nearly five years ago, and I have yet to see that happen.

    Mr. Speaker, we are on a roll. We have had two or three economists speak in a row. We are going to end up taking over the House of Commons.

    My question for my esteemed colleague and fellow committee member concerns the need for government support to be well targeted.

    Does he believe that the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, which builds on the GST tax credit, provides targeted assistance to those who truly need it?

    Mr. Speaker, I am quite fond of the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin. It is a pleasure to work with him.

    The answer is yes. That is why we voted in favour of that benefit and that is why we welcomed that cheque. That is exactly what we were saying. This cheque, which is the former GST rebate, takes into account household composition, family allowances and income. It is targeted, and it is the kind of measure that we want because we can redistribute more money while spending less.

    What surprises me is that, just a few weeks ago, the government acknowledged that this was the right approach, but today, on this Conservative opposition day, it has decided that implementing targeted measures is no longer the way to go. I find this inconsistency hard to understand. I am even wondering why the government did not decide to tell us this morning that it might need to rethink the format of this cheque in order to be consistent.

    Saying one thing three weeks ago and saying something else today is no way to be consistent in formulating public policy.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With regard to Standing Order 43(2)(a), the Conservative slots will now all be split in half.

    I thank the member for his intervention.

    Questions and comments, the hon. member for Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay.

     Mr. Speaker, my colleague made an eloquent speech, but I would like to ask the member, how long does he think it is going to take? How many years is it going to take before he feels we can lose our dependency on fuel? He would like to change things so that we are not dependent on it anymore, and yet it is well known that this could take years.

    In my riding of Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, a lot of people cannot afford electric cars. They need to drive trucks because they work in agriculture or they work in professions where they need a large car, vehicles that are not even available as electric at this point.

    How many years is it going to take, and how many people are going to have to suffer if we do not take the taxes off fuel?

    Mr. Speaker, I take issue with the question itself. The structure of the question seems like sophistry. What the member is saying is that because the transition will take time, there is no point in doing it step by step and we should abandon the attempt altogether and just drown ourselves in oil.

    We have consistently acknowledged that this will take time. We have not said that all pipelines must be shut down. We have said, and this is consistent with the International Energy Agency's position, that we should not undertake new projects. We need to embark on a transition to secure the new energy that we need, taking a step-by-step approach.

    What the Conservatives are saying is that since this cannot be done right away, there is no point in doing it at all, because people will suffer if the whole thing cannot be done right away. It is like a dog chasing its tail. It is not going to get very far. I think we need to take a step-by-step approach and act responsibly. We need policies that incentivize a transition. No one here in Parliament has ever said that we will suddenly stop needing oil and gas one day. That has never happened.

    Mr. Speaker, as my colleague accurately pointed out, this morning's Liberal announcement will not necessarily benefit the most vulnerable people specifically. It will also run up the deficit.

    Can my colleague expand on this and talk about how increasing the deficit could affect the most vulnerable because of inflation and other factors?

    Mr. Speaker, this reminds me of the discussion we had yesterday and the witnesses we heard from at the finance committee. We all agreed that Canada has a productivity problem and that we need to grow our collective wealth. We also have to make sure that people's income, especially that of the poorest 20% of households, rises faster than the cost of living. That calls for private investment.

    We also agree that there is a deficit and that we will not wipe it out in two or three years. We are all realistic about that. However, every dollar the government borrows is a resource that is not necessarily available for loans to the private sector and for more productive investments.

    The long-term plan has to focus on productivity. Continuing to run up deficits and increase spending recklessly, day after day, every time the Conservatives move an opposition motion is totally at odds with what the Prime Minister says on a daily basis.

     Mr. Speaker, there are moments in public life when a government is tested not by what it says, but by what it does when people are hurting. This is one of those moments. Across the country, Canadians are not just frustrated; they are stretched to the breaking point. They are making trade-offs that no family in a prosperous nation should have to make. They are choosing between filling the tank and filling the fridge, between getting to work and paying the mortgage, between keeping the lights on and keeping food on the table. At the centre of that pressure is the simple and avoidable reality: the cost of fuel. Here at home, fuel is not a luxury. It is not discretionary. It is the lifeblood of our economy. It is how a nurse gets to a night shift. It is how a contractor gets to a job site. It is how food gets from the farm to shelf. When fuel costs rise, everything else rises, and yet while Canadians here at home are paying more, Ottawa's coffers are taking in more. The Liberal government is cashing in on higher oil prices while forcing Canadians to pay more at the pump, making work more expensive, family life more expensive and running a business more expensive.

    Let me put it plainly. Canadians are being squeezed, and the Liberal government is profiting from that squeeze. That is why Conservatives are calling for zero tax on gas to give Canadians a break, not Liberal half measures that cut the tax half the way and for half the time.

    Last week, when asked what he would do about rising gas prices, the Liberal Prime Minister said, “That's something we're looking at.” Canadians do not need a Liberal government that is looking. They need a government that is doing. While the Liberal Prime Minister is following gas prices, Canadians here at home are falling behind. Every day of delay is another day families fall further behind.

    I want to tell the House about a woman I met in my riding of Richmond Hill South, a mother who works two jobs, one during the day and one on weekends. She does everything right. She budgets. She saves where she can. She does not ask for handouts. She only asks for a fair shot. Last week, she told me that filling up her car now costs her nearly $100. That is not a luxury vehicle. That is a basic car that gets her to work and gets her kids to school. She told me that she does not look at the total anymore, that she just stops when she cannot afford to keep going.

    Think about that for a moment. In Canada, in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, we have people who cannot afford to fill their tank, not because of laziness, not because of poor choices, but because the Liberal government in Ottawa is piling taxes on top of rising global prices. That is wrong. It is economically wrong. It is morally wrong. It is fiscally unsustainable. Canadians deserve a break. That is why Conservatives are calling on the Liberal government to scrap the 25¢ per litre on gas for all of 2026, not just simply to meet us halfway.

    Let us talk about some of the facts. Yes, global events like the conflict in the Middle East have driven up oil prices. That explains part of the increase. It does not explain why Canadians here at home are paying about 28¢ a litre more for fuel than Americans do just south of the border. That difference is not geography. It is not geopolitics. It is not destiny. It is a homegrown, made-in-Ottawa Liberal tax policy. It is the result of a Liberal government that has layered tax on top of tax on top of tax and expects Canadians to just absorb it.

    While Canadians here at home are struggling with higher prices, the Liberal government is enjoying a windfall. According to a former Liberal economic adviser, every $10 increase in the price of a barrel of oil generates about $2 billion in additional federal revenue in Ottawa's coffers. In recent weeks, oil prices are roughly $45 to $50 higher than the pre-war baseline. When we crunch the numbers, that is close to $9 billion to $10 billion in additional revenue flowing into Ottawa's coffers, money that is coming directly from the higher costs here at home that Canadians are paying.

    Here is the question. The Liberal government is making billions more because Canadians are paying more. Why is it not giving all of that money back and suspending all gas taxes for the rest of 2026?

    Conservatives are offering a clear, practical and immediate answer. Take $5 billion of that windfall to Ottawa and give it back to Canadians by removing all federal taxes on gasoline and diesel until the end of 2026, not next year, not after another study, but right now. That means suspending the 10¢-per-litre federal excise tax. It means suspending the GST on fuel, which puts about eight cents per litre on gasoline and four cents per litre on diesel. It means permanently eliminating the so-called Liberal clean fuel standard tax, which is already costing Canadians seven cents per litre and is set to rise to 17¢ per litre.

     Stacked together on top of one another, these Liberal taxes add up. They are crushing. When we remove them, Canadians will save about 25¢ per litre on gasoline and 21¢ per litre on diesel. That is about $20 every time a parent fills up a minivan. On average, that is more than $1,200 back in the pockets of a family of four by the end of the year. That is money for groceries and rent, and much-needed breathing room. Here is a key point. The Liberal government can afford to do the right thing, but it is choosing not to. Why will the Liberal government not borrow our Conservative ideas and provide immediate relief for Canadians here at home by scrapping all gas taxes and its beloved Liberal industrial carbon tax?

    Right now, the priority of the Liberal government is clear. It is to take more, give less and hope Canadians do not notice. Canadians across the country are noticing. They notice it every time they see a higher total at the pump, every time a delivery fee goes up and every time the grocery bill climbs even higher, because rising fuel prices do not stay at the pump. They spread through the entire economy. When transportation costs rise, suppliers raise their prices. We are already seeing it. Just last week, we learned that food producers are now introducing these new fuel surcharges on top of the food products they sell. When suppliers raise their prices, grocers pass those costs on. When that happens, families here at home pay more.

    Elevated fuel and transportation costs are compounding the affordability crisis faced by families after more than a decade of Liberal policies. Food banks are now seeing over two million visits per month, including from 700,000 children. A family of four is expected to spend $17,500 on food this year, which is $1,000 more than last year. Canada has become the food inflation capital of the G7, and that is not a title to be proud of. That is a warning sign, and it is directly linked to the policies of the Liberal government here at home.

    According to a recent academic study, the Liberal industrial carbon tax is undermining the competitiveness of our agri-food sector and has contributed to food prices rising 48% faster in Canada than in the United States. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has confirmed that the Liberals' so-called clean fuel regulations alone are adding seven cents per litre this year, rising to 17¢ per litre by 2030. It is starting to sound a whole lot like the Liberal consumer carbon tax. On top of that, the Liberal industrial carbon tax is rising to $170 per tonne, costing workers over $1,100 per year, shrinking the economy by 1.3% and putting 50,000 Canadian jobs at risk. These are the real consequences of Liberal ideology. The Liberals can provide immediate relief to everyday Canadians by scrapping the Liberal industrial carbon tax and suspending the punishing 25¢ per litre of tax on gas, including the Liberal fuel standard tax for all of 2026.

    Canada's affordability crisis is not an unintended consequence of global factors. This is the predictable result of deliberate Liberal policy choices here at home, choices that prioritize ideology over affordability and treat working Canadians as a revenue source rather than people to serve. Let us take a step back and look at the broader picture. After a decade of Liberal government, Canada is falling behind here at home. The OECD reports persistent weakness in business investment, GDP growth is projected to decline this year and, since 2015, Canada's GDP growth rates have lagged behind the United States. A recent report shows that business investment adjusted for inflation and labour force growth has declined since its 2014 peak. More than half of Canadians are not living in their ideal home, mortgage affordability continues to worsen across the country and young people are being completely priced out. This is not a blip. It is a pattern.

    Here at home, Canadians are facing higher costs, lower growth and fewer opportunities and now, instead of course correcting, the Liberal government is doubling down. The Liberal Prime Minister told Canadians he would bring serious economic leadership and reverse the damage of the last Liberal prime minister, but Canadians here at home are still waiting while costs rise, while wages fall behind and while their government looks at their problem. Canadians have been pinching their pennies long enough. It is time for the Liberal government to pinch its own.

    Other countries understand this. Australia, Spain, Ireland, Italy, Germany and Austria have all moved to cut fuel taxes to provide direct relief at the pump. Behind every statistic is a real person here at home, working hard, doing everything right and still falling behind. The mother of two working two jobs should not need a pay raise just to fill up her tank.

    Mr. Speaker, fuel prices are, indeed, very high. Crude oil prices went from about $60 a barrel at the end of February to about $100 a barrel at the moment, and they might even go much higher. The Strait of Hormuz remains closed. I do not think that has anything to do with Liberal policy.

    In the motion of our colleagues, they point to the permanent elimination of the fuel standards regulations. Really? In 2026, they want to permanently eliminate fuel standards? Is that what the Conservatives stand for?

    Mr. Speaker, Conservatives are calling for the permanent scrapping of Liberal taxes. That includes the 10¢ federal excise tax and the GST on top of all those taxes, and the Liberals' so-called clean fuel standard tax.

    Let us not forget that the 25¢-a-litre tax, the removal of which we are calling for, is a Liberal made-in-Ottawa problem. It cannot just be blamed on global oil prices. This is a time when Canadians are facing an affordability challenge. Two million Canadians are relying on food banks, and 700,000 of them are children. As well, food prices are expected to rise by about $1,000 for a family this year.

    Conservatives are providing real solutions. Will the Liberals support this?

    Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised by what the Conservatives are proposing today. I am not surprised that it is yet another pro-oil proposal, as we are used to that, but I am surprised that they are proposing to increase the deficit by more than $7 billion with all these tax exemptions.

    Meanwhile, every time the government delivers a deficit budget, they get all worked up about it, although perhaps they have good reason to do so, since recent deficits have been quite excessive. The Conservative leader has said that every new expenditure would be offset by savings, but they are still proposing to add $7 billion to the deficit. Where are the savings the Conservatives are proposing, or are they suggesting that that government should simply run a bigger deficit?

    Mr. Speaker, this is not deficit spending. This is taking from the windfall that Ottawa is receiving from elevated oil prices. The Liberal government is not returning that money, which belongs to Canadians, and putting it in the pockets of Canadians at a time of an affordability crisis.

    Even for people who do not drive or take public transit, fuel tax still affects the price they pay at the grocery store. Just last week, we learned that a major food producer is now slapping a fuel surcharge on all the food they are selling in bulk. Eventually that is going to make its way to the prices at the grocery store.

    Conservatives are calling on the Liberal government to do the right thing and scrap the 25¢-a-litre tax on gas for the rest of 2026.

    Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives on this side have been listening to Canadians, and that is why we have brought forth the cutting of gas taxes. Today we have seen that the Prime Minister has caved to Conservatives, because we are actually listening to Canadians, but again it is not all the way. It is halfway.

    I would like my colleague to enlighten us on why this is so important to his riding, because I know his riding is a transportation hub as well. Can he let us know what it would mean to scrap all the gas taxes for a full year and not just halfway until Labour Day?

    Mr. Speaker, yes, it would affect everyone across the country, including residents in my riding of Richmond Hill South, whether that is in lower food prices, lower transportation costs or a lower price to pay at the pump.

    Instead of focusing on delivering on solutions to address the affordability challenges the Liberal government has caused, the Liberal government is laser-focused on trying to stitch together a Liberal majority government through dirty backroom deals that Canadians did not vote for and to overcome the power of the people. The Liberal government should be focused on Canadians rather than on dirty backroom deals.

     Mr. Speaker, right now Canadians are being hit twice, first at the grocery store and then at the gas pump. Canadians are paying close to two dollars a litre for gas, a 35% increase that follows them everywhere: to work, to school and to the people they love. Here is what makes it worse: While Canadians are paying more, the Liberal government is profiting more. Because of rising gas prices, the federal government is expected to take in billions of dollars in additional tax revenue, which is money it never budgeted for. While it rakes in the profits, Canadians are left with higher bills they did not budget for.

     Let us be clear. This does not stop at the pump. Higher fuel costs ripple through everything. They raise the cost of shipping. They raise the cost of farming. They raise the cost of food. Therefore, when Canadians walk into the grocery store, they are paying not just for groceries but also for failed Liberal government policy, which continues today.

    Conservatives are happy we were able to force the government to cut some of the the taxes on fuel, but these measures hardly satisfy even a quarter of the affordability measures we have demanded. Not only that, but these half-baked measures are only for the summer. Clearly the Prime Minister is buying a short-term political win while leaving Canadians with a long-term affordability crisis. We have all known for some time that the Liberal affordability crisis is not seasonal, so Canadians are asking a simple question: Why is the Liberal government profiting while Canadian families are struggling?

     Other countries, such as Australia, Spain, Ireland, Italy, Germany and Austria have already moved to provide direct relief at the pump. They immediately lowered fuel taxes. They stepped back and gave their people breathing room, because in extraordinary times, government should take less, not more. Therefore, I reiterate our entire ask for the rest of the year: Give Canadians a break, drop all federal taxes on gas and diesel, and let Canadians keep more of what they earn, because they need it now more than ever.

    The government promises its programs can deliver affordability, but it is an economic truth that a government cannot spend its way to affordability. Each dollar spent by the Liberal government was first a dollar that belonged to and was taken from a hard-working Canadian. While it stands to take billions of dollars in additional revenue from higher gas prices it did not budget for, Canadians are being crushed by increasing grocery bills and gas prices they have not budgeted for.

    The Liberals respond by saying that this is a global problem and that it is sort of out of their control, but Canadians know better. When we look at the facts, we see that this is not just a global problem. It is a made-in-Canada problem as well.

     Canada has the highest food inflation in the G7, in a country with some of the most fertile land on earth. We have the highest food inflation among our peers. The same is true for energy. Canada is one of the most resource-rich countries in the world. We have massive oil and gas reserves, yet Canadians are paying some of the highest prices. That is because for years the Liberal government has blocked development, discouraged investment and choked growth in our energy sector. It continues to do so.

    Basic economics tells us that when costs go up, prices go up, and when supply is constrained, prices go up as well. Canadians are living that reality every single day. If we layer on the years of excessive spending, the deficits piled on deficits, and a dollar that does not stretch the same way it used to, what is the result? It is higher fuel costs, higher food costs and lower purchasing power.

    The Liberal government says, “Trust us. We will take your money but will give it back at some point.” Canadians do not want a middleman taking a cut. Canadians do not want affordability filtered through Liberal bureaucracy. They are saying clearly and firmly to stop taking so much in the first place, because affordability does not come from handouts. It comes from letting people keep what they earn and from building an economy that actually works.

    The Prime Minister has doubled the deficit run by Trudeau. Now, with gas prices soaring, he is clinging onto the expected billions of dollars in additional revenue to make a tiny dent in his projected $80-billion deficit. The Liberals' announcement affects only a third of the taxes on fuel they collect, for a third of the year.

    The unchanged impact is the GST on fuel costs of seven cents per litre and other taxes. While the Liberal government could have budgeted but did not, Canadians are paying higher gas prices for which they could not have budgeted. The Liberal government, of course, is raking in billions in profits. Canadians are left paying for the Liberal government's reckless fiscal irresponsibility.

    This weekend, I spoke with a couple in my community whom I have known for nearly 20 years. They are seniors, and they still live in the same home that I used to visit when I was in high school. They told me that they needed to return to work, as their pensions are no longer enough to cover basic essentials. Their pensions do not go as far. Their grocery bills have doubled. Their gas bills keep climbing. After a lifetime of work, they have had to go back to work, not because they want to but because they have to.

    There was a time in this country when seniors could retire with dignity, when they could trust that what they had saved was enough and that their government would protect, not erode, their standard of living. However, today inflation is eating away at those savings, and rising costs are forcing impossible choices. Do seniors fill the tank, or do they fill the fridge? Do they visit their grandchildren, or do they stay at home to save gas? This is not the Canada they built.

    It is not just our seniors. Young families are feeling it too. Parents are looking at their children, and they asking what kind of country they are leaving behind, because they remember a different Canada, a Canada where we could afford groceries, we could afford gas and we could afford a life. Today, a simple trip to the grocery store can cost $300 for two bags of food, then we go to the pump and get hit again.

    Canadians are tired of being squeezed, of being told this is normal and of being told to trust the Liberals to restore affordability. Whom is this affordability for? Where are the homes the Liberals promised? Very few people in my riding benefit from the grocery credit, while everyone pays more at the pump and for groceries. My neighbours want the government to have the humility to understand one simple truth: It cannot spend its way to affordability. Each dollar spent by the Liberal government was first a dollar belonging to and taken from hard-working Canadians.

    Let us do the right thing. Give Canadians a real break at the pump, cut all taxes on gas and diesel for the rest of the year and start putting money back where it belongs, which is in the pockets of the people who earned it first, because in this country, the Liberal government should not profit from the hardship of its people.

    Mr. Speaker, we have just had a very clear exposé of why we cannot be in favour of the Conservative motion. First of all, the recent increase in gasoline prices comes as a result of the war in the Middle East. Most importantly, as my hon. colleague mentioned very clearly, the heart of the issue is the fact that she said, “affordability does not come from handouts.”

    We believe that direct government assistance and social programs are key components of the government's role and of making life more affordable for Canadians. Does my hon. colleague find any virtues in things like the Canada child benefit?

     Mr. Speaker, we are calling for long-term, permanent solutions to affordability. Programs and handouts do not address long-term affordability issues. They do not target the cost of living. A handout will not address the cost of living. This is something the member must understand.

     What Conservatives are calling for are permanent, long-term solutions, removing the taxes that are driving up the cost of everything, encouraging hard work and encouraging Canadians to actually keep their money, to be responsible, to open up businesses and to create wealth. That is how we grow the economy permanently, not through short-term programs.

    The reality with the program the member opposite mentioned is that only one out of 20 kids benefits from it.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to applaud my colleague from Newmarket—Aurora for her fantastic speech. I agree with her that the Liberals should suspend the fuel taxes until the end of the year, not only to help just the people of London—Fanshawe, who I have heard from, who are concerned about the rising fuel prices, but also to help Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

     I wonder if my colleague could elaborate on the benefit of suspending fuel taxes until the end of the year.

     Mr. Speaker, we are in a time when Canada has big problems, and we need to address them immediately and thoroughly.

    With our proposal today, we are outlining a wholesome proposal to address the affordability problem and the rising cost of gas that every Canadian across our country feels. As I mentioned, Canadians feel it at the grocery store and then feel it again at the pump. It follows Canadians who do not have a choice but to go to work and drop off the kids at school. These costs impact Canadians all day, every day.

    Mr. Speaker, I have two quick questions for my colleague.

    First, the total cost of everything being proposed here amounts to $13 billion annually, which would increase the deficit by that amount. Would it not have been better to propose more targeted measures?

    Second, with regard to the clean fuel standard, the motion says that it would save seven cents per litre. These calculations are based on the price difference between biofuels and oil at a time when oil was cheaper. However, with the current price surge, the two are now the same price. This means we go from saving seven cents per litre to saving nothing.

    Why does my colleague want to keep this part of the motion?

     Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the budget, I do not believe that the government should be benefiting from a surge in prices and taking in this tax revenue at the cost of Canadians. The government had the opportunity to budget properly, to lower expenses and to attempt to balance the budget in that way, not at the cost of Canadians.

    Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I must inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Mont-Saint-Bruno—L'Acadie.

    It is my turn to speak to the motion moved by our Conservative colleagues. I will try to cover five themes if I can stay on track and maintain my focus.

    First of all, I would like to remind all of my colleagues that the Conservative Party's motion contains four parts. The Conservatives are calling on the government to remove the fuel excise tax; to remove the GST on gasoline and diesel for 2026; to permanently remove what the Conservatives call the fuel standards tax, which is actually the fuel standards regulations; and to permanently remove the industrial carbon tax. According to their calculations, these four measures could lower the price of gas by 20¢ to 25¢ per litre. Obviously, we do not agree with those proposals, and we will be voting against the motion.

    I would like to explain why we are in this situation. I believe it has been said multiple times, but it is important to reiterate nevertheless. The price of crude oil has increased from around $60 a barrel at the end of February to around $100 today due to the war in the Middle East and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. This situation is extremely worrisome because we do not know how it will end. I doubt that anyone today can claim that things will go back to the way they were. No one can say that, and neither can the possibility that the price of oil will reach $150 a barrel be dismissed out of hand. We do not know.

    The Strait of Hormuz is still closed. Twenty per cent of the world's oil production transits through the strait. Some extremely important segments of the global economy, notably in Asia, are starting to experience fuel shortages. The current oil crisis is probably as big, or even bigger, than the oil crises the global economy has experienced in recent decades. This is not a minor disruption. It is a major shock, and we do not know how all of this will be resolved.

    Furthermore, in retaliation for the U.S. attack, Iran destroyed a lot of energy infrastructure in the Gulf countries. Even if the Strait of Hormuz reopened tomorrow morning, fuel transportation could not resume as it was before February 28. This is an extremely worrying period for the global economy. We need to plan our next steps carefully because we simply do not know what the future holds for energy.

    In Canada, we have enough energy for our own needs. There will clearly be no energy shortage in Canada, unlike in the 1970s. However, it is also clear that it is very difficult to determine the price of energy at this time. That is the context in which we find ourselves. It is important that we take it into consideration when developing public policies to support Canadians, who are indeed facing a major increase in gasoline prices, which will have repercussions on the entire food supply chain, on transportation and so on.

    One part of the Conservative motion calls for a suspension of the fuel excise tax. As the Prime Minister announced, we are going to do that. However, we cannot implement the other parts of the motion. I will try to explain why I believe that we cannot and must not do so.

    First, we are being asked to suspend the GST, which is a tax that was actually created and implemented by a Progressive Conservative government in the early 1990s. It is a value-added tax. This tax is effective because it is set at a relatively low rate and has very few exemptions or exceptions. That is what makes the GST work. In Europe, for example, the value-added tax is set at a much higher rate and includes a complex system of exemptions and exceptions that make it extremely difficult to manage.

    First, it is clearly better to have a consumption tax than an income tax. Next, if we have a consumption tax, then it is better to keep the rate relatively low but allow for very few exceptions and exemptions. It has to be easy to administer. Let us be clear: Such a value-added tax must also support, promote and give preference to local and national producers over imported products. That is why it is so complex. We have to think twice or three times before we start making changes to the Canadian GST. It is best not to go there.

    We also think that another part of the Conservative motion is completely inappropriate. It has to do with what they call the clean fuel tax, but what is actually the clean fuel regulations. What our friends are proposing is to completely eliminate those regulations. It is 2026. I think we need to continue to have clean fuel regulations so that the air in cities and rural areas is breathable. We do not want to go back to the good old days when people could burn just about anything and with no regard for the impact it would have on the air we breathe. Our American neighbours seem to want to go back to those days. No, we need to keep these regulations in place to make the air breathable. Our children need to be able to breathe.

    Regarding the industrial carbon tax, I have always thought that Conservatives could understand how this kind of tax works. Ultimately, it is based on the pricing system. The pricing system sends the necessary signals to allocate resources in an economy. As I have already said before in the House, this is something that has been used by well-known socialists, such as Brian Mulroney with Canada's Clean Air Act or Ronald Reagan and the Clean Air Act. I still think it is important that we have such mechanisms in an advanced and open economy like Canada's.

    In closing, as I said earlier, we are still going to suspend the fuel excise tax. It will provide a little boost. We have already implemented other measures to help consumers, including the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, which transfers funds directly into the accounts of the Canadian families most affected by affordability issues. That is a targeted program that we can improve in the future if necessary.

     Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the parliamentary secretary's speech. He talked about the rising cost of oil on the global markets and how that is affecting the price of gas and diesel fuel here. What he did not say is that when the price of fuel rises, the amount of taxes charged on that fuel also increases significantly. He did not talk about the $10 billion in extra revenue that the Liberal government is going to be realizing on the increased pricing.

     Yesterday, I asked the Prime Minister if he would consider four things: removing the federal excise tax on gas and diesel, removing the fuel standard tax, removing the industrial carbon tax and removing the GST for the balance of the year. That would have put $5 billion back into the pockets of Canadians at 25¢ a litre. The Prime Minister has only gone part of that way, with 10¢ a litre on gas and four cents a litre on diesel fuel.

    Can the parliamentary secretary tell me why the government is only putting that measure in until September—

    I interrupt the member to give the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry a chance to respond.

     Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult at this point. We cannot make the assumption that the government would get $16 billion. We do not know if the oil shock will lead us into a recession and if government revenues would actually go down. It is very audacious on the Conservatives' part to say so clearly that there would be a $16-billion windfall in revenue. We just do not know that at this point.

    Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the hon. parliamentary secretary on his content-rich speech. I would like to hear his thoughts on what tax specialist Luc Godbout said a few months ago about how we need to resist the temptation to lower the gas tax for either budget-balancing or environmental reasons.

    I would add to that the pressure that will be felt when the fuel excise tax comes back into effect on Labour Day. Will public pressure not be so strong that it will be difficult to bring that tax back in September?

    Finally, would it not have been wiser to implement targeted measures for the trucking industry and for people in greater need, for example, rather than temporarily suspending the fuel excise tax?

    Mr. Speaker, I am very familiar with Luc Godbout, who my colleague quoted. I am very familiar with his comments and I think that, generally speaking, he is right. However, we are currently experiencing such a major shock that we had to do something quickly. The quickest measure to put in place was to suspend the fuel excise tax.

     Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleague on the other side can advise his colleagues to stop calling us obstructionists, because today we have witnessed what a healthy opposition can do. We have held their feet to the fire. We have been calling for zero tax on gas and now the Prime Minister has actually made an announcement that he is going halfway until Labour Day. We want zero taxes for the whole year. Make no mistake, this would not have happened if Conservatives had not brought this issue forward.

    I would like my colleague to acknowledge that if it were not for the Conservatives, we would not be seeing relief at the pumps today.

    Mr. Speaker, like everybody in this room, we can read the newspapers. We can see what is going on at the gas pumps and the impact of higher global oil prices, so we have to do something. The fastest way to assist consumers is by suspending the excise tax. If other measures need to be taken later on, we will consider them as well.

    Mr. Speaker, our government has stepped up its efforts to make life more affordable for Canadians because we need to take action and get moving. The current global environment is evolving rapidly, and there is a lot of uncertainty around the global economy. Canada is no exception, and Canadians and Canadian businesses are seeing this every day. Our government is focusing on what it can control: building a stronger economy and making life more affordable for Canadians. We have introduced a number of measures to lower the cost of living and enable Canadians to keep more of their hard-earned money.

    Let us talk about the excise tax announcement. It is great that the Leader of the Opposition made sure to mention gas prices in the motion. The military conflicts going on around the world are affecting refinery capacity and oil and gas transport networks. The government is mindful of the fact that while these conflicts may be happening in distant lands, consumers have been forced to pay higher prices at the pump here in Canada. We know that this is creating uncertainty, causing stress and putting pressure on families trying to make ends meet.

    As the Prime Minister indicated earlier today, our government will provide significant relief for the cost of fuel by suspending the federal excise tax on gasoline and diesel starting on Monday, April 20, and until Labour Day on September 7. Currently, the federal excise tax is 10¢ per litre for gasoline and four cents per litre for diesel. The suspension of this tax is expected to save Canadians about $5.75 on a full 50-litre tank of regular gasoline and up to $2.30 on a full tank of diesel. This represents total relief of more than $2.3 billion. The price of gas, among many things, reflects current circumstances abroad that have an impact on Canada, which requires targeted intervention from the government to help Canadian families.

    By reducing the cost of gas and diesel directly at the pump, we are taking a clear step to support families as they face the current hardships. The measure will cost a little more than $2 billion, so it will not jeopardize government finances or our other efforts to build the strongest economy in the G7.

    The provinces also have their own gas and diesel taxes and, if they want, they can implement their own measures too. What we are doing is using the federal fiscal situation, which is better due in part to higher oil prices, to provide targeted support to households and businesses. Note that this support is in addition to other measures already in place. We know that too many families are struggling to make ends meet at the end of the month. People do not need abstract promises. They need real, immediate and lasting support. That is exactly what our government is providing.

    That is why we launched the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit, which replaces and improves upon the old GST credit. It will provide more support to more than 12 million low- and modest-income Canadians.

    In real terms, starting this spring, a one-time payment equivalent to a 50% increase in the annual value of the GST credit for 2025 and 2026 will be paid out. That amounts to $3.1 billion of immediate relief in the pockets of families. In addition, as of July of this year, the value of the benefit will increase by 25% for five years, adding another $8.6 billion in additional support. In total, a family of four will receive $1,890 this year and around $1,400 per year over the next four years. A single person will receive up to $950 this year and about $700 in subsequent years.

    This is real support to pay for groceries, bills and everyday expenses. That is also why we eliminated the federal consumer fuel charge, a measure that has been in place for a year now and was formalized with the passage of Bill C‑4. Under that same bill, we also lowered taxes for nearly 22 million Canadian families by reducing the rate of the first personal income tax bracket from 15% to 14% in 2026. That is a savings of $420 per person and $840 for a two-income family.

    Under Bill C‑4, we also eliminated the GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes valued at $1 million or less, while reducing the GST for homes valued between $1 million and $1.5 million. We have also reached an agreement with the Government of Ontario to further reduce taxes for homebuyers.

    The government has also taken concrete measures to make the banking system fairer and more affordable for Canadians. Since March, consumers can no longer be charged more than $10 in fees when there are insufficient funds in their personal chequing account to cover a payment. Banks can no longer charge this fee more than once over a two-business-day period for the same account. Most importantly, no NSF fees can be charged when the overdraft is less than $10. This is another way our government is helping Canadians where it really counts.

    The government's measures to promote affordability, including the one announced today, clearly demonstrate how the government is helping Canadian families. As the Prime Minister said today, we cannot control what other nations do, but we can control what we build for ourselves. What we are doing here is building a strong and affordable Canada, so that our country has the strongest economy in the G7.

     Mr. Speaker, the Liberals came out today, but I do not think they were prepared for the Prime Minister to announce that he was going to adopt Conservative policy, and so most of their debate has been on everything but cutting the gas tax. The Liberals and the Prime Minister have come halfway: half the taxes until Labour Day.

     My question to the member is: Why not cut all the taxes for the rest of the year and save Canadians even more money, because they have been listening, they have been emailing and they want real relief at the pumps? Why not go all the way, all the taxes for the rest of the year, and not just halfway to Labour Day?

    Mr. Speaker, we are a responsible government, and our actions are targeted and well thought out. For now, our government has made a timely decision to adapt as challenges arise. For now, the measure we have taken addresses the immediate needs of families.

    Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed to find that, when members are speaking French in the House, English-speaking members often speak louder than those speaking French. This happened during my colleague's speech, and it is happening at this very moment as I prepare to ask a question. This occurs on both sides of the House. It is a deeply saddening situation.

    Considering the current spike in gas prices, should we not be doing more to limit our dependence on the oil economy, such as by expanding the electrification of transportation and by doing more than what is currently being done?

    Mr. Speaker, as a government, we make responsible decisions based on the budget that was announced.

    Our government made a decision while taking care not to compromise the budget in progress or create a deficit that could not be paid down. We therefore took targeted action, effective until September 7, to see how the situation would evolve.

    Our government is pragmatic. If things change, we can come back here and improve on our decisions, as needed.

    Mr. Speaker, I commend my hon. colleague on his speech.

    The Conservative motion is based on the assumption that the price of oil will stay the same until the end of year.

    Can my hon. colleague explain why this assumption is incorrect, given that we have no idea how the situation will unfold?

    Mr. Speaker, we always make decisions based on the available data.

    The future price of oil, for which data has not yet been released and remains unknown, cannot serve as the basis for a decision. Our government decided today to lower the price of fuel because the data is known and has been published and we have the budget to do it.

    That is why we will always be a pragmatic, flexible and responsive government that helps Canadians.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today to fight to eliminate the gas tax for the rest of the year so that every Canadian who drives will save 25¢ a litre, $20 per fill-up and $1,200 every year. This is part of our efforts as Conservatives to make life more affordable and put more money back in the pockets of hard-working people. We want to literally power our economy with more affordable gas and reverse the inflation we have seen over the past 10 years under the Liberals.

     Before I address that issue, I want to point out that, yesterday, the Prime Minister manufactured a costly majority that Canadians rejected in the last general election. He did it through backroom deals that run counter to the interests of the people, with the help of politicians who defied the choices of their own voters in the election. Canadians did not choose this majority. The Prime Minister has imposed it through backroom deals. This now forces the Prime Minister to deliver results. He has been in power for a year now, and it is important to look at the results achieved so far. He has doubled the deficit, given Canada the worst food inflation in the G7, the worst housing costs in the G7, the worst household debt in the G7 and the only shrinking economy in the G7. No pipelines have been approved, and no crime legislation has passed. He replaced the old carbon tax with a new one, but not everyone is suffering. Liberal insiders continue to profit from big contracts, the appreciation of their investments, and the list goes on.

    It is the same thing with the gas tax. The federal government gets 25¢ per litre for the gas tax. Today, the Prime Minister announced that he will be returning only a fraction of that amount to consumers, who are already overtaxed. He announced that he will simply suspend a third of federal taxes for a third of a year. We proposed eliminating all federal gas taxes for the rest of the year. Our Conservative approach would have allowed Canadians to save a lot more and would have provided relief to consumers, who need to keep more money in their pockets. We said that the government could recover the lost revenue in a number of ways. For example, because the oil companies are posting higher profits as a result of higher prices, the government is collecting much more revenue, enough to cover the revenue lost as a result of eliminating the gas tax for the entire year. Unfortunately, the Liberals have not yet managed to reverse the inflation that is costing Canadians so much.

    While it is true that the Government of Canada did not cause the increase in world prices, it is also true that prices are a lot higher in Canada than in the United States, and taxes are the reason for that discrepancy. The Liberals continue to pursue an inflationary policy. The Prime Minister has created a budget deficit of close to $75 billion, which is a lot more than the deficit left by Justin Trudeau. He is keeping all the anti-development laws in place and by so doing, he is preventing our economy from growing.

    The Liberals expect Canadians to give up, grow complacent and fade into the background so that they can exercise power without accountability. That is not going to happen. Our country and its people are worth fighting for. We are going to keep fighting for people to have housing, food and affordable energy. We are going to keep fighting for their safety. We are going to keep fighting for resource sector workers and for our soldiers. We are going to keep up our efforts to advance the interests of ordinary Canadians. I am going to keep leading the charge here, in the House, across the country and in the next election, when Canadians will take back control. We are going to rebuild the country that we know and love, and make it affordable for everyone. That is our goal.

    I have risen today to address our Conservative proposal to eliminate all federal gas taxes for the rest of the year, saving families roughly 25¢ a litre, $20 per fill-up, and $1,200 between now and Christmas.

    However, before I address that, let me just address that the Prime Minister has manufactured a costly majority that Canadians rejected in the last election. He did it through dirty backroom deals against the interests of the people, with the help of politicians who betrayed their voters and their citizens. The Liberals wanted a majority. Well, absolute power comes with absolute responsibility. They will actually have to get things done. They will have to do so without blaming others, and they will have to start now. So far, that has not been the case.

     Here are the results of the Prime Minister. He has doubled the deficit and given Canada the worst food inflation in the G7, the worst household debt in the G7, the only shrinking economy in the G7 and the worst housing costs in the G7. No pipelines are approved, and no changes to the Criminal Code are approved. He has not replaced the carbon tax, but rather brought in a new carbon tax that, while currently lower, will rise higher and is much broader.

     He promised to cut red tape and remove barriers to building. He has not removed a single Trudeau-era anti-development law, but stacked new laws on top of old ones. He has not removed a single government agency; he has created 12 new ones. He said that we were facing an existential crisis that required immediate action at unimaginable speeds. After Parliament, in just five days, rushed through massive, unprecedented legal powers for him to get things approved, he has not used those powers to approve a single solitary project of any kind almost a year later: nothing.

     Speaking of projects, what about pipelines? What about the famous pipeline to the Pacific, the great symbol of our energy sovereignty? After a year of the Liberal Prime Minister promising unprecedented speeds, that project has no route, no permit, no builder, no timeline to start and no end date to be completed. Further, the only company that could potentially build it, Enbridge, has said that it is impossible to fill the pipeline, because the taxes and anti-production laws that the government has kept in place mean there will not be enough oil to run through it.

     Finally, the Prime Minister has added another condition: that the Alberta people spend $20 billion on a carbon capture project that will lose money every year into eternity, a project that has never been done anywhere in the world and has no builder, no permit, no start date and no timeline. The promise is a phantom, another illusion.

     The same is true with taxes. The federal government collects 25¢ a litre on gas and diesel. Today, the Prime Minister announced he will offer only a fraction of that back to overtaxed customers. In other words, he will only be suspending a third of the federal taxes for a third of the year. That is not good enough. Canadians cannot afford to put gas in their tanks. We want all gas taxes eliminated for the rest of the year to save Canadian families $1,200.

     We will continue this fight. We know that the government has the money. It is getting $5 billion in extra revenues from the fact that the oil companies are making more profits and therefore paying more tax automatically and organically. That money should go back into the pockets of consumers, not into the coffers of government. We want this country to be affordable so that Canadians can fill their tanks, fill their grocery carts, fill their fridges and fill their stomachs without emptying their bank accounts. Now, the Liberals would ask Canadians to give up on this expectation, to lower their plans and to accept less.

    We do not accept less. Canadians might be discouraged right now because of the current political situation, but let us say this: Canadians should not give up. We will continue the fight for Canadians to have affordable homes, affordable food and affordable fuel. We will fight for Canadians to have safe streets. We will fight for Canadians to have powerful paycheques and strong jobs. We will fight for our soldiers and law enforcement, who keep us safe.

     I will continue to lead that fight in this House, across this country and in the next election, when we, as Conservatives, will work to restore the country that we all know and love.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the leader of the official opposition a question. Decisions are made gradually. One cannot make a decision unilaterally without weighing the consequences. That is why we always say that we can control what we do here at home.

    Today, the Prime Minister decided on a measured approach to reducing the cost of gasoline in order to bring costs under control so that people's finances are not overly affected. People should not assume that a unilateral decision leads to orderly, structured action.

    Mr. Speaker, a unilateral decision is called for because the federal government imposed these taxes unilaterally. The federal government can choose to keep these taxes or get rid of them. The member is wondering how the government will make up for the lost revenue. The answer is that the government is bringing in more revenue because oil companies' profits are going up in step with rising prices globally.

    The question is, will the government choose to spend that revenue or leave it in consumers' pockets? Conservatives want to put it in Canadian consumers' pockets.

    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?

    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.

     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?

     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.

     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.

    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?

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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?

    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—

    Resuming debate, the chief government whip.

    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!

    Hon. Mark Gerretsen: 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.

    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?

    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.

    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—

    The hon. chief government whip.

    Mr. Speaker, I will be the first to say that my opinion on things absolutely changes, given the context and the circumstances that the world is in, from time to time. As a matter of fact, I would even argue that this is the whole reason why we come to this room. All 343 of us come to this room not just to give speeches endlessly and then sit down or leave. Call me an idealist, but do we not come here with the whole point of trying to convince people of something? As such, from time to time, I will be the first to say that I will put myself in a position to say that maybe my position on something is wrong and maybe I should look at it differently. To be critical of that is to be critical of the entire democratic process, the entire reason why 343 of us come to this room.

     Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the reminder of how the Conservatives do tend to bring about their convenience. It is more like the “do as I say, not as I do” Conservative Party. We really do not necessarily know where they stand. Sometimes their own members are confused.

    I would like to hear from the member, just to bring the constituents of the riding of Waterloo up to speed, what we are debating today and perhaps what took place.

    Mr. Speaker, we are debating an opposition motion that was kind of made moot as a result of what the government announced today. However, I will say to the member's point that, yes, Conservatives are continually changing how they feel about a particular issue based on the context that they happen to be in. The member will remember that when we had somebody cross the floor to the Conservatives, we never treated them the way the Conservatives treat everybody who crosses this way.

    Mr. Speaker, we are here today to discuss a Conservative proposal aimed at supporting Canadians in the face of the ongoing energy crisis in the Middle East.

    In short, we are proposing that the House call on the government to adopt the Conservative plan to save Canadians not 10¢, but 25¢ per litre by eliminating federal taxes on gasoline and diesel for the remainder of 2026. To support Canadians, we are calling on the government to take immediate, concrete and responsible action to put money back in the pockets of our youth, our families, our workers, our seniors and our industries.

    Our proposal includes four immediate tax-relief measures:

    All told, this would allow Canadians to save around 25¢ per litre of gas, which means $20 every time a parent fills up the minivan, or more than $1,200 a year for a family. These are immediate steps the government can take to ease the pressure on our constituents. In addition, our plan will save businesses and workers around 21¢ per litre of diesel, providing relief in an already difficult economic climate. This will allow businesses to retain their employees and remain competitive.

    This will also help consumers, who will end up paying the price if nothing is done to curb rising fuel prices, which will force suppliers to raise their prices. This means higher grocery prices, higher housing costs, and higher fuel costs for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

    After years of inflation, high taxes and rising costs, Canadians have tightened their belts enough. It is time for a change. It is time for this Liberal government to cut taxes in response to the current energy crisis.

    While gas prices have risen sharply across Canada and elsewhere in the world, the biggest winner right now is the government. It is estimated that there will be an exceptional, unanticipated and unbudgeted tax windfall of $9 billion in total. That is $9 billion that will swell the federal coffers.

    I unequivocally believe that these additional tax revenues should be returned to taxpayers, the people in our communities who work hard every day. That is why the Conservatives are calling on the Liberals to use $5 billion of the estimated $9 billion in additional revenue to eliminate all federal taxes on gasoline and diesel. To be clear, the federal government will collect more revenue from the higher oil prices than it would cost to suspend the fuel tax for the rest of the year. If it is going to make billions of dollars more from higher oil prices, the least it can do is give that money back to Canadian families and business owners.

    We saw that this morning. Once again, the Liberal government stole a Conservative proposal. However, according to the Conservatives' strong affordability plan, the government only came up with a half-measure, which is no surprise. If we look at the numbers, the Conservatives proposed to completely eliminate all federal fuel taxes. That measure would put 25¢ a litre back into the pockets of Canadians. The Liberals had every option but they chose to eliminate only the excise tax, which is a cut of 10¢ a litre. That is 15¢ a litre less than our proposal. The Liberal proposal is a cut of 10¢ a litre for four months, while we were proposing a cut of 25¢ a litre for the rest of this year.

    When it comes to diesel, the gap is even wider. Our proposal provides 21¢ in relief to the truckers and farmers who keep our economy running. Do not forget that farmers work 365 days a year and are on call 24 hours a day. Farmers are the ones who put breakfast, lunch and dinner on our plates. We need to give them the level of support that matches the responsibility they bear of feeding Canadians. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all farmers.

    A Conservative government will significantly reduce the diesel tax for farmers, as our proposal is 17¢ per litre lower than the government proposal. The government has deliberately chosen to keep Canadians' hard-earned money here in Ottawa. We called for these taxes to be eliminated until the end of the year to allow families of four to save approximately $1,200 per year. However, the Liberals chose to end this relief on September 7—four months earlier than in our plan.

    Canadians have a right to know that the Liberals have reduced the cost of fuel by only 10¢. The Liberals forgot to mention the reality at the pumps: Canadians are still paying 15¢ per litre for gas and 17¢ per litre for diesel in taxes alone. These taxes could be reduced to help ordinary folks get through this energy crisis.

    Some things are outside Canada's control. We cannot control the U.S President, what is happening in Iran or global energy prices. However, Canada has the power to shape its own destiny right here at home. That means removing internal trade barriers, cutting red tape and putting Canadians first. That said, the Liberal government had the full power to lower the cost of gas for Canadians, the full power to axe all the taxes it charges at the pumps and the full power to support Canadians and make life more affordable.

    To wrap up, I have many questions. Why will the Liberals not adopt our entire plan to axe all federal taxes on gas and diesel? Why will the Liberals not take action to help Canadians save 25¢ per litre of gas? Why will the Liberals not take action to help families of four save $1,200 by the end of this year? These are important questions that Canadians in my riding and across the country are asking day after day.

    Mr. Speaker, my colleague is wondering why we are not accepting their plan, yet I could ask him the same question. Why is he not voting in favour of affordability for our families?

    We need only consider dental care and how important it is in our regions. I see the number of people who registered in my riding. We even organized sign-up sessions. That is something practical. I went into politics to do practical things. Now, we have a real opportunity to do that. Talking and proposing things are all well and good, but when it comes time to vote for practical action, the opposition, unfortunately, is not on board.

    Does my colleague intend to join us in the future and vote for measures that help people in practical ways?

    Mr. Speaker, today's debate is on the opposition motion and concerns gas taxes, but my colleague is talking to me about the Liberal dental plan. What we are discussing today is the gas tax. The Liberal proposal is 10¢ for a short period of time. We are talking about eliminating all taxes, which amount to 25¢ per litre. That is money that goes directly into people's pockets.

    There is a significant increase in revenues right now. The Liberals owe it to Canadians to put that gas tax money back in their pockets.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the motion's last two points.

    First, the Conservative Party estimates that eliminating clean fuel standards would save seven cents per litre, but the actual savings would be zero cents per litre. This is because the Conservative Party's numbers are based on old data from back when oil prices were much lower than they are now with the current crisis and price spikes that have put oil on par with biofuels. Their math is wrong, and this measure would be pointless.

    Second, the last point is about eliminating the industrial carbon tax. Does my colleague realize that this will lower the cost of gas at the pump by zero cents per litre because the price of crude oil is determined by the market? This would be a gift to oil companies that would not be passed on to consumers because the price of crude oil is determined internationally and prices are soaring, which means more profit. Foreign capital owns about 75% of the oil industry in the west, and their profits go overseas. Why go into debt for that?

    Mr. Speaker, once again, I appreciate the question from my colleague from the Bloc Québécois.

    Today, I am not here to debate how tax revenue is calculated. I am here for the people of Canada. Right now, Canadians are being suffocated. They are being bled dry. We have an opportunity here to help our farmers, our manufacturers, our families, and our seniors by significantly reducing taxes on gasoline and diesel. That is what the Conservative government is proposing.

    Mr. Speaker, my question is very simple. The hon. member has been talking about his constituents and how they have been feeling the squeeze at the gas pumps. We see that the Liberals have adopted half of our plan. Could my colleague please elaborate on why they should have stolen the full idea of the Conservative plan that we were proposing, and not just half of it?

    Mr. Speaker, I would like thank my colleague. I quite like him and am lucky enough to play hockey with him.

    We were talking about half-measures just now. What the Liberal Party is proposing is a measure that will last four months, while what we are talking about would cover all of 2026. We cannot offer a half-measure for a few months and then reinstate the taxes.

    They are talking about 10¢ per litre, whereas our proposal is for 25¢ per litre. That is a significant difference. As we know, right now, the residents of my riding, those in my colleague's riding, and all of my colleagues' constituents are being fleeced. One way to help them would be to eliminate all taxes for the entire year of 2026 to demonstrate a genuine effort by the Canadian government to address their situation.

    Mr. Speaker, it is always a honour to rise on behalf of the amazing residents of Vaughan—Woodbridge to fight for a more affordable life. Speaking of affordable, I would like to take the opportunity to say that it is unfortunate that the Prime Minister put together a costly majority government, not through the ballot box but through politicians who betrayed their constituents and betrayed their principles, principles they ran on and sought public office on, principles they will be held to account for during the next election.

    We have been calling for relief at the pumps. Our motion today calls for the Prime Minister to adopt the Conservative plan to suspend all taxes on fuel until the end of the year. Earlier today, the Prime Minister confirmed once again that Conservatives have the solutions for Canada, but Liberals seem to want to introduce only half measures that will not deliver the full benefits to Canadians.

    This morning, the Prime Minister announced the suspension of the federal fuel excise tax on gas and diesel. The suspension takes effect on April 20 and runs until September 7. Any measure that reduces the cost of fuel for Canadians is a step in the right direction, but this is only one part of the four-part plan of our Conservative motion before the House today. Unfortunately the Liberal government and the Prime Minister missed three of the other points of our plan and are not removing tax until the end of the year as we have proposed.

    Conservatives have brought forward a plan to eliminate the fuel excise tax, the GST on tax and diesel, the industrial carbon tax and the clean fuel standard for the rest of 2026. This would cut costs by 25¢ a litre and save families, on average, $1,218 this year. This morning's announcement addresses 10¢ of that tax on gas, and only until September 7.

    A parent in my riding got up this morning, strapped their kids in their car and drove them to school. They then went to work. Before they did any of that, they stopped at the pump. One year ago, that fill-up cost them roughly $92 for a minivan. Last week, it cost them more than $127. Next week, it might be more. Over the years, deliberate policy choices the Liberal government has made built a tax structure on fuel that now squeezes Canadians every time they grip the nozzle.

    The Prime Minister says he wants to govern in a collaborative way, but the results are nonexistent. It is time for his rhetoric to match reality. It is an illusion that the Prime Minister will deliver on affordability, when he is out to remove only one tax, the fuel excise tax, and only from April 20 until Labour Day.

    The CAA's own price tracker tells the story plainly. Gas across Canada now averages more than $1.82 a litre, up from $1.32 a year ago and just $1.52 six short weeks ago. That is a 38% spike in the cost of getting to work, getting kids to school and getting food to market. For millions of Canadians who are already living paycheque to paycheque, this compounding crisis, layered on top of crises the government has created, is too much to bear.

    That is why we are here today to debate the motion. Conservatives have brought a specific plan to deliver immediate relief at the pump. We are calling on the government to adopt it. We need to provide immediate relief for families.

    Government members are going to rise today and tell us that this is about global oil markets. They will reference the Middle East. They will explain the Strait of Hormuz. We have heard the Prime Minister use at a press conference the exact same description I just referenced, saying it is beyond Canada's control and asking what we could possibly do.

    The global market explanation has one flaw that can be exposed with a single fact: Americans face the same global oil market, but Canadians pay almost 20% more at the pumps than the Americans do. It is the same disruption, yet when an American family pulls into a gas station, it pays dramatically less. The question that the House needs to be asking is why.

    The answer is that it is the federal Liberal tax policy. Americans do not pay the fuel excise tax on every litre. They do not pay the clean fuel standard. The hidden carbon tax, which the Parliamentary Budget Officer himself confirmed, costs Canadians seven cents per litre, with no rebate attached. Americans do not carry an industrial carbon tax that will rise to $170 a tonne.

     Here is a precise outline of what Canadians pay in addition to what Americans pay, in federal tax alone on every litre of gasoline: 10¢ a litre in fuel excise tax, which Conservatives are calling to be removed until the end of the year, not just until Labour Day; eight cents a litre in GST on gas and diesel; and seven cents a litre in the hidden carbon tax, with no rebate attached. That is 25¢ in additional costs per litre for all Canadians. On top of that, we have an industrial carbon tax already at $110 per tonne and rising to $170 per tonne.

    Therefore, when we talk about global markets' being the cause of rising prices, it is indeed an immediate factor, but there are deep-rooted factors caused by our federal government that we could take decisive action on and address today.

    There is another added dimension in the crisis the government hopes Canadians do not notice: The higher the price is on fuel, the more the government collects. According to a former Liberal top economic adviser, Tyler Meredith, every $10 increase in the price per barrel of oil brings roughly $2 billion in additional revenue for the federal government through the higher taxes paid by the oil industry from higher profits.

    For context, oil is currently trading at $45 to $55 above pre-war baselines. The federal government stands to collect $9 billion or $10 billion in additional annual revenue if these prices are sustained. These figures have been validated by independent economists, such as Scotiabank's director of forecasting and modelling, Olivier Gervais.

    The Conservative plan asks for $5 billion of that $9 billion windfall to be returned to Canadians, who generated it. Let us be clear: Conservatives are not asking the Liberals to spend money they do not have. We are asking them to return money they did not earn, which is money that flows directly to Ottawa precisely because Canadians are paying more at the pump.

    After years of Conservatives and Canadians from across the country pleading it do so, the government eliminated the consumer carbon tax, yet what the Liberals try to hide from the public is that two more taxes remain in place, and both of those taxes are growing.

     The clean fuel standard is silent. It is invisible on the price board at the pump, but that seven cents per litre is there every time we fill up our vehicle. Then there is the industrial carbon tax, currently at $110 per tonne and scheduled to rise again to $170 per tonne. The Liberals will tell us that this tax hits only industry, but the Canadian Federation of Independent Business tells us that nearly 70% of small businesses have seen their energy costs rise, and 32% of them already have raised their prices just to cover it. The Fraser Institute analysis found that the trajectory to $170 per tonne will cost the average Canadian worker $1,160 in lost annual income, eliminate 50,000 jobs and shrink our economy by 1.3%.

    All this is to say that Liberals can try to reduce the impact of this all they want, but businesses do not absorb taxes. Taxes flow through to the shelf, and consumers pay more. Every time a Liberal member rises in the House and suggests that the industrial carbon tax does not touch ordinary Canadians, they contradict the lived experience of every small business owner and every family who has watched their grocery bill rise and the price at the pumps go up.

    To reiterate, this four-point plan will be before the House—

    I must interrupt the member so we can proceed to other business.

    Mr. Speaker, Canadians are being squeezed at the checkout counter like never before. Families are cutting back on essentials, skipping meals and struggling to afford groceries, while a handful of grocery giants continue to post massive profits. This is not a free market working for people. It is a system tilted in favour of corporate power, where Canadians pay more and get less. The cost of groceries is not just a household issue; it is a national affordability crisis, and it demands bold action.

    Under the leadership of Avi Lewis, New Democrats are ready to take on grocery price gouging head-on. That means tackling surveillance pricing, building real public options in food distribution, strengthening local and regional supply chains and supporting Canadian producers. We have done this before.

    From protecting farmland in B.C. to building public systems that put people first, the NDP knows that when we act in the public interest, we can lower costs and improve lives. It is time to take back control from grocery giants and put—

    The hon. member for Eglinton—Lawrence.

    Mr. Speaker, as a recovering banker, you will forgive me if I relapse for a moment. I want to recognize the Canadian ETF Association and the profound impact exchange-traded funds have had on investors globally.

    Canada gave the world one of its most important financial innovations: the exchange-traded fund. Born on the Toronto Stock Exchange, ETFs have fundamentally transformed how investors access capital markets by making investing more transparent, efficient and affordable. Today, ETFs employ 15,500 Canadians and manage more than $802 billion in assets. ETFs direct capital into Canadian businesses and infrastructure. They strengthen our capital markets and ensure that Canadians can build wealth with confidence. If we want to remain a global leader in financial innovation, we must continue to stay ahead of the Americans and others.

    I want to thank Prerna Matthews, Alex Perel, Eli Yufest and the Canadian ETF Association for their great work.

     Mr. Speaker, a year ago, a tragedy in Vancouver turned a joyful Lapu-Lapu festival into sorrow. As we approach this anniversary, the grief and trauma remain. For many families, the path to healing continues.

    Even in the midst of that pain, we saw the strength of a community coming together, a community with compassion, resilience and strength. Neighbours lifted up one another, strangers became family and Canadians across the country stood in solidarity. Last Sunday, I attended a community fundraiser supporting those still on the road to recovery. It was a reminder that as time passes, our support must not.

    As we honour those we lost, we stand with those still healing, together.

    Mr. Speaker, this Wednesday, April 15, Canadians across the country will come together for National Canadian Film Day, a celebration of who we are and the stories we tell about ourselves. From classrooms to community centres, from libraries to living rooms, people will gather to watch Canadian films sitting side by side. More than 2,000 free screenings will take place across the country with over 200 films and millions more tuning in from home for stories that reflect our communities, stories that challenge us and stories that remind us who we are and what we share.

    I am especially proud of Sharon Corder and Jack Blum from Toronto—St. Paul's who co-founded Reel Canada, the organization behind National Canadian Film Day. Their vision has grown into something truly special: a celebration of Canada right across the country and the globe.

    Tomorrow and in the days to come, I hope Canadians take 90 minutes, give or take, to find a film, gather with others and celebrate the stories, the artists, the directors and the visionaries who bring us together.

    Mr. Speaker, Olivia Chow and Toronto city council are building an injection site between a day care and a middle school in our beautiful neighbourhood of Downsview. It will be another Toronto homeless shelter that hands out pipes and needles. It will have a safe room where non-residents can get in, get a needle, inject themselves, leave and roam the neighbourhood. Toronto's homeless shelters have morphed into drug injection sites. Now Olivia Chow wants $700 million from the Liberal government to pay for the construction of 20 more of these shelters all around Toronto.

    Join me for a visit at Jane and Wilson near the Toronto Plaza shelter. It is an epicentre for drugs, crime and chaos. There are needles everywhere, drug trade and solicitation. The intersection is dead. Olivia wants to turn Jane and Wilson into Keele and Wilson using federal money, but we do not want Olivia's shelter harming our children and we do not want the Liberal government to fund the construction of these drug dens that bring crime and chaos to Toronto streets.

    Downsview residents do not consent to this shelter, and we will fight it tooth and nail.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of my constituents in Beauport—Limoilou. Marc Bergeron is a psychoeducator who coordinates the “1, 2, 3 Go! Limoilou” initiative.

    For the past 20 years, Mr. Bergeron has been driving around Limoilou in his little bus filled with activities, stopping at every park. Above all, he spreads happiness and pure joy. He gets lots of attention everywhere he goes, making people smile, making people laugh and bringing people together. He simply creates beautiful, happy moments for people of all ages.

    Over the years, his bus has become a true gathering place and a landmark for many families. His dedication reminds us that it is the small, everyday acts that make our neighbourhoods more welcoming and more vibrant.

    As he prepares to begin his well-deserved retirement, I want to acknowledge his significant contribution to our community.

    I want to thank Mr. Bergeron.

    Mr. Speaker, I am deeply troubled by the profound tragedy that occurred Sunday at Sarnia's Lambton College campus. My heart goes out to his family and all who knew 20-year-old Dane Nisbet, a promising young former junior hockey player who was taken far too soon, and also to the two others who were injured.

    This senseless and unnecessary act of violence has shaken the community. We all know it could have been prevented. The primary suspect was already under a court order prohibiting him from possessing firearms and has a rap sheet a mile long. He was arrested in March for assault with a weapon and failure to comply. Last May, he was arrested on two counts of assault with a weapon and a breach of order, and he was previously charged with assaulting an elderly man. This guy should never have been on the streets. It is absolutely insane how he was not in jail.

    Who bears the responsibility for this? It is the Liberal catch-and-release bail policies that continue to place dangerous offenders back on our streets instead of keeping them behind bars. We must fix these failed policies now to protect innocent lives. Canadians deserve safer—

     The hon. member for Humber River—Black Creek.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise in response to deeply troubling reports of executions and repression in Iran, including the execution of six political dissidents by the regime in recent weeks.

    In addition to this political repression is the escalation of the obsessive, systemic and ongoing persecution and scapegoating of the Iranian Baha’i religious community. As an example, Borna and Peyvand Naimi, two Baha’i cousins, targeted for their religious faith, remain detained, and have been reportedly tortured and, like others, coerced into false confessions.

     Targeting people for their religious beliefs is a grave violation of worldwide human rights. Canada must continue to condemn these abuses, work with allies and press for accountability. Iranians deserve dignity, justice and freedom from fear.

    Mr. Speaker, Canadians are under immense economic strain, and now the Liberal government has jeopardized the very foundation of home ownership. The Cowichan decision and secret Musqueam agreement have cast a dark shadow over private property rights. By failing to defend fee simple ownership in court and dropping key legal arguments, the government has sparked fear and financial chaos. Appraisers are warning that affected property values could plunge 40%. Financing is drying up and projects are already being cancelled. This is a massive failure of leadership.

    Conservatives are calling on the Prime Minister to reinstate a strong legal defence of private property, ensure all agreements unmistakably protect ownership, deliver a clear plan within 30 days and immediately convene a parliamentary committee.

    Canadians deserve certainty and security, not empty words. The government must protect Canadian homes and restore confidence now.

    Mr. Speaker, on April 4, the community of Saint‑Paulin said goodbye to one of its leading citizens, Claude Frappier.

    First elected to council in 2004, his dedication to the common good motivated him to take on the position of acting mayor in November 2020. Re-elected as mayor on 2021, he discharged his duties with unprecedented diligence, determination and dedication until illness forced him to step away from the position.

    Everyone admired Mr. Frappier. Always attentive to the needs of others, open-minded and generous, he will long be remembered by the people of the RCM of Maskinongé, as evidenced by the impressive number of people who came to pay their respects on April 4.

     Mr. Frappier was a model of engagement and devotion to the betterment of his community, and I am grateful to him.

    Mr. Speaker, agriculture and food are at the heart of my region's identity. Committed men and women are showcasing our farm-to-table expertise. One example is Karine Vachon and Jean‑François Bolduc of JF Bolduc farm. For 25 years, they have innovated, improved their practices and contributed to more sustainable agriculture. Their work was recently recognized by the Réseau des fermes durables de l'Estrie.

    The excellence of the Eastern Townships extends to our plates. My region has three finalists at the Lauriers de la gastronomie québécoise, whose awards ceremony will be held on May 4. The Routier-Bolduc family from the La Station cheese factory is one of the finalists in the artisan of the year category. The Manoir Hovey is also in the running with Alexandre Vachon, finalist for chef of the year, and Joanie Métivier, finalist for sommelier of the year. We must continue to support and promote this farm-to-table expertise.

     Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister continues to make big promises, Canadians continue to struggle. The truth of the matter is that he is an illusionist. Canadians are paying 35% more due to rising global oil prices, and Liberal taxes are making it even worse, forcing them to pay almost 20% more than Americans. Not only is the Prime Minister late to the game at announcing relief at the pumps, it is an illusion that he will actually deliver on affordability when he is only pausing the fuel excise tax from April 20 until Labour Day.

     Conservatives have brought forward a plan to eliminate the fuel excise tax, the GST on gas and diesel, the industrial carbon tax and the clean fuel standard for the rest of the year. It is a plan that would cut costs at the pump by 25¢ per litre, saving a family of four $1,200 this year. Canadians deserve affordable fuel and food. Conservatives will continue to fight the cost of living crisis, restore economic growth and make life affordable again.

    Mr. Speaker, the Society of Gynecologic Oncology of Canada says we are in a national silent health crisis. Cervical cancer has become the fastest rising form of cancer in Canada. Last year an estimated 1,650 Canadian women were diagnosed with cervical cancer, and 430 will die from the disease. Cervical cancer had been in decline for decades, but in recent years, rates have been on the rise. This is a disease that is almost entirely preventable through human papillomavirus vaccination, easily diagnosed through cervical screening and highly curable when treated early.

     Last July, our government released an action plan to eliminate cervical cancer by 2040. During this April, Cancer Prevention and Early Detection Month, Canadian women need to know that HPV vaccination and cervical screening can save lives.

    Mr. Speaker, Canadian gas prices have soared and the time for action is now. Unsurprisingly, the Liberals have only just stumbled out of the gate.

     Conservatives have presented a plan with real solutions for Canadians amidst an affordability crisis that Liberals created. Here is the solution: Cut four costly Liberal gas taxes. Our plan would halt the fuel excise tax and the GST until the end of 2026 and permanently remove the fuel standards tax and the industrial carbon tax. These taxes cost Canadians an extra 25¢ a litre on gas and 21¢ a litre on diesel. Cutting taxes would keep that money in Canadians' pockets.

     This morning, the Liberals attempted to poach this plan but, true to form, they did not even copy and paste correctly. By pausing only the fuel excise tax and only until September, the Liberals have acknowledged that cutting taxes is the answer, but their half-measure plan would save far less than our Conservative plan would.

     Will the Liberals admit their mistake this afternoon and implement our full plan today to promote real relief for Canadian families?

     Mr. Speaker, I have good news. Canada has reached the NATO 2% defence spending target half a decade ahead of schedule and with the largest year-over-year increase for our defence budget in generations. This is a proud moment, and I want to congratulate the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence for their leadership in making it happen.

    This is more than a number. It is a signal to the world that Canada is serious about defending what we have built and protecting what we value. Cape Breton knows this very well, because Sydney has been selected as the preferred home for Canada's next generation of polar ice vessels. This is bringing jobs, strengthening our Arctic sovereignty and putting our community at the centre of the defence renewal.

    We are rebuilding and we are rearming, and in a world that is watching, Canada once again will lead the way.

    Mr. Speaker, no one is surprised the Liberal Prime Minister stole another Conservative idea, but like a typical Liberal, he only took a part of it. The Prime Minister said he was looking for solutions. We put one right in front of him.

    Conservatives are calling for all federal fuel taxes to be removed for the rest of this year, including the excise tax, the GST, the Liberal fuel standard and the industrial carbon tax. Canadians would save 25¢ per litre at the pump, and families would save $1,200 just this year.

    Instead, the Liberals announced a half-measure and kept all the Liberal fuel taxes in place that are driving up the cost of gas, groceries and transportation. Canadians are paying 20¢ more per litre than the Americans, and the difference is federal Liberal fuel taxes.

    Today, Conservatives brought a motion forward to remove all federal taxes for the rest of the year for Canadians. If the Prime Minister is going to steal our ideas, he should at least be willing to steal them whole.

    Mr. Speaker, last night Canadians made a big decision in University—Rosedale, Scarborough Southwest and Terrebonne by putting their trust in this new government's plan and our Prime Minister.

    To everyone who put their name on the ballot, I want to say thanks. Our democracy is better off for their participation.

    I would like to congratulate our new colleagues Danielle Martin and Doly Begum, and of course welcome back our colleague Tatiana Auguste.

    This government has a clear mandate to continue taking action on the important issues that matter most to Canadians, and with these three newly elected colleagues and under the leadership of our Prime Minister, we will do just that.

     Mr. Speaker, after weeks of Conservative pressure, the Liberals finally admitted that their high fuel taxes are hammering Canadians at the pumps, but, in typical Liberal fashion, this Prime Minister has proven to be just another Liberal, keeping more windfall taxes for government than for providing relief for Canadians.

    The Liberal announcement today is simply not good enough. It is going to provide only a third of the relief for a third of the year. The Conservative plan is to scrap 100% of federal fuel taxes for the entire rest of the year. If the Liberals are going to admit that the Conservatives were right all along, why not just go all the way and adopt our full plan?

    Mr. Speaker, I know it is Tuesday. There is so much good news that I do not know where to start. I really do not know. Just look at their faces. They should be smiling. The International Monetary Fund just announced that Canada is forecasted to have the second-fastest growth in the G7. In addition, we are suspending the federal fuel excise tax on gasoline from April 20 until Labour Day. Every day is a good day to—

    The hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle.

    Mr. Speaker, good times are almost here, just a little over the horizon, but right now there are no smiles on motorists' faces, because they were expecting 100% relief at the pumps. Under the Liberal government's plan, the government will still continue to collect windfall taxes, and hard-working Canadians will have to pay more at the pumps.

     The Liberal government is keeping the GST on fuel and the fuel standard tax, which alone adds seven cents a litre. It is providing only a third of the relief for a third of the year. We do not give a pharmacist a high-five when he gives us only one third of our prescription. Why not just go all the way and reduce, scrap and eliminate 100% of fuel taxes for the—

     The hon. Minister of Energy and Natural Resources.

    Mr. Speaker, unlike the opposition members, who do not have a plan, we have a plan. We have reduced the price of gasoline by 28¢ a litre since we became the government. We are reducing taxes for Canadians. We are reducing GST for Canadians. We are reducing development charges on homes, which, in my riding, is saving $200,000 a home. That is how one deals with affordability.

    Mr. Speaker, while Canadians are struggling to pay for groceries, the Liberal government is once again proposing half measures. The Prime Minister's announcement only deals with a fraction of the fuel taxes and only for a few months. It is a measure that would reduce the cost of gasoline by as little as 10¢ a litre. Meanwhile, prices at the pump continue to skyrocket. Canadians are already paying far more than their American neighbours.

    Why are the same old Liberals refusing to offer real relief to Canadian families?

    Mr. Speaker, it is only Tuesday and we already have so much good news that I do not even know where to begin.

    This morning, the International Monetary Fund reported that Canada will have the second-fastest growth in the G7. We are also announcing the suspension of the federal excise tax on gasoline and diesel. This measure will leave $2.4 billion in Canadians' pockets. That is great news for motorists, great news for consumers and great news for Canada and affordability.

    Mr. Speaker, the truly good news will come when this government decides to take all of our advice. For three years, we have been asking them to eliminate the carbon tax; they did it. Now we are asking them to remove all taxes on gasoline: GST, excise tax and clean fuel surcharges included.

    Is the government ready to go the extra mile to help Canadians who face the harsh daily reality of paying too much for everything?

    Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the announcement made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance. It will put $2.4 billion back into the pockets of Canadians to help with the cost of living. However, we are not stopping there. We have cut taxes for 22 million Canadians, and then there is the Canada child benefit, the Canada dental plan and the grocery benefit. There are so many measures that I am having a hard time naming them all. These are all measures the Conservatives voted against. They are in no position to lecture us when it comes to the help we are providing Canadians to cope with the cost of living.

    Mr. Speaker, the Liberal gas price change amounts to what is really chump change. It is only for a third of the year, for a third of the tax. It is not relief when Canadians barely save 10¢ a litre on gas and four cents a litre on diesel. It is not relief when Canadians still have to pay the GST and the Liberal fuel tax. Canadians are going to get back pennies. Meanwhile, the Liberals are collecting billions of dollars in federal gas tax revenue.

    Why the half-measure? Why not adopt the Conservative plan to remove all the Liberal taxes on fuel, diesel and gas?

    Mr. Speaker, in addition to all this good news, I want to highlight one additional measure the Prime Minister and my colleagues announced today, and that is that Canadians are going to find it less expensive to get out and travel around the country this summer, because we are lowering the excise tax on jet fuel. We are going to reduce the cost of domestic flights. We will even go visit the member in Foothills.

     Get out and enjoy Canada. Vive le Canada.

    Mr. Speaker, it is incredible how the Liberals can twist themselves in pretzels. It was not that long ago they were accusing all Conservatives of taking a summer vacation while the planet burned, and now they are saying we can travel around the world.

     It is not a benefit when the Liberals are pocketing billions of dollars in gas tax revenue right from the pockets of Canadians who are struggling just to buy the basics. Why do the Liberals take these half measures? Why do they not follow a Conservative policy and eliminate all of the Liberal taxes on fuel so Canadians can afford that summer vacation we would all love to take?

    Mr. Speaker, the reality is that global instability has created an atmosphere where we had to react, and we are reacting.

     I credit the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance for coming forward with this. I hear from the farmers on the front line every other day that they are concerned about the crop they are going to put in. It is the second-fastest growing economy. That is a contribution from our farmers. It is 28¢ less a litre since this new government has been put in place, and $2.4 billion back in the pockets of Canadians. It is a good day.

    Mr. Speaker, regional news is in jeopardy, and this is even more true for regional news in French, which is why the independent local news fund, or ILNF, is so important. Ever since the CRTC allowed 15 English-language stations from the Corus group into the fund, the share of funding going to French-language media has plummeted. The only two eligible French-language groups have lost nearly half of their funding, which has dropped from 26% to 14%. Obviously, the solution is for GAFAM to contribute to media funding, but first, regional news in French must survive.

    Will the government increase the fund?

    Mr. Speaker, we know that thanks to the fund, several regional French-language media outlets receive federal funding specifically to provide information in French. Yes, we are considering all the options in a landscape where these platforms and these broadcasters are under threat from the larger platforms.

    Mr. Speaker, we have no problem with funding going to English-language regional news outlets, but it should not come out of French-language media outlets' funding. If outlets are added to the independent local news fund, money should also be added. We would obviously not have this problem if the Prime Minister had not abolished the digital services tax. The government could have provided decent funding for all our media outlets through the web giants' fair share.

    Since the Prime Minister is depriving our media outlets of this revenue, will he top up the fund?

    Mr. Speaker, as I said in my previous answer, we are considering several options.

    Mr. Speaker, by adding 15 English-language Global stations to the ILNF without funding from the web giants, the government is robbing Peter to pay Paul. The result is that 86% of the ILNF money is going to English-language media, and it is the independent regional French-language media outlets that are paying the price. Let us be realistic. There is no long-term solution without contributions from the web giants, but there is no point if there are no media outlets left to save. The government has to temporarily replenish the ILNF and extend its journalism labour tax credit to include electronic media, like Quebec has done.

    When is that going to happen?

    Mr. Speaker, that question reveals the true nature of the Bloc Québécois, which is always trying to pit the English-language media against the French-language media. I think we can fund both at the same time.

    Mr. Speaker, this Prime Minister's temporary, half measures on fuel prices show he is more focused on increasing government revenues than offering real relief to Canadians at the pump. The Liberals will rake in up to $10 billion more in taxes, while Canadians will save just 10¢ a litre.

    Here we go again: Billions for this Liberal government, but pennies for Canadians.

    Why should soccer moms, seniors and young people pay the price at the pump for this Prime Minister's overspending?

    Mr. Speaker, let me help my friend on the other side of the aisle.

    We have cut taxes by 28¢ a litre since this new government came into office. We have cut income taxes. We have cut GST. We have cut the cost of a home in Markham—Thornhill, my riding, by $200,000 in total. That is what affordability looks like.

    Mr. Speaker, this announcement will barely move the needle for Canadians drowning in credit card debt just to fill up. Instead of adopting the Conservative plan to eliminate all taxes on fuel and save Canadian families $1,218 until 2027, the Liberals' half-baked plan will only save families 10¢ a litre for a couple of months.

    No one has a monopoly on good ideas. Why is this Prime Minister refusing to listen to Conservatives, and offer real relief to Canadians at the pump?

    Mr. Speaker, I would agree with my colleague, and he is a man of good heart. Clearly, the Conservatives do not have the monopoly on good ideas. That I can confirm, that is for sure.

    What I can say is that I know in his heart, he knows that the measure will save Canadians $2.4 billion. That is a responsible measure to take. It is a significant boost to families, soccer moms and people who are in the logistics business. It is going to help our farmers, fishermen and all Canadians at this time of need.

    To the people at home, we have always been there for them, and we will continue to fight for them every single day.

    Mr. Speaker, once again, the Liberals have shown Canadians that the best solution for taxpayers is found in the Conservative Party of Canada.

    Instead of committing to real relief at the pumps for the rest of the year, this Prime Minister announced a short-term pause that only affects one-third of his government's taxes on fuel for only one-third of the year. He is still refusing to pause the GST on gas and diesel, the industrial carbon tax and the clean fuel standard.

    Why do the Liberals insist on part measures instead of adopting our Conservative plan to remove all federal taxes on gas and diesel to save Canadians 25¢ a litre for the rest of the year?

     Mr. Speaker, while that leader continues his podcast tour, on this side of the House we are going to continue to focus on affordability for Canadians.

    Just this morning our Prime Minister announced a pause to the federal excise tax of 10¢ a litre. Combining that with the cut in the consumer carbon tax, that is 28¢ a litre in savings that goes back into Canadians' pockets.

    On this side of the House, we are going to continue to focus on affordability. We are going to continue to deliver that for Canadians.

    Mr. Speaker, it is too generous to call the Liberals' latest proposal announced today even a half measure. People are suffering under the increased fuel costs and increased fuel taxes, yet the government has decided that it will continue to reap a massive GST windfall on the backs of overtaxed Canadians.

    By fully committing to our plan, a family of four would save more than $1,200 just this year.

    Will the Liberals do the right thing and adopt our plan to save 25¢ a litre by cutting all federal fuel taxes for Canadian drivers for the rest of this year?

     Mr. Speaker, here is the thing: We can focus on two things at the same time. We can help families with urgent cost relief right now, which we are doing by eliminating the fuel excise tax, but what we can also do, and this is the part Conservatives do not get, is help with long-term sustainable affordability. That is where things like affordable child care come in, or removing the HST from new homes, or making sure that there are school food programs, or ensuring that the Canada child benefit is there for families.

    We want to be there for families now when the crisis is urgent, but also in the long term. That is the kind of stuff the Conservatives vote against every time.

    Mr. Speaker, Conservatives have brought forward a plan to eliminate the gas tax, the GST on gas and diesel, the industrial carbon tax and the fuel standard tax for the rest of 2026. That would cut costs at the pump by 25¢ per litre and save a family of four up to $1,200 this year.

    Why is the Liberal Prime Minister shortchanging Canadian families and not cutting all taxes for the whole year?

    Mr. Speaker, as I have said from time to time, the Conservatives across the way have been here for 10 years. I have been here for 10 months, and guess what? I get to announce the tax break for the farming community in Saskatchewan. It was done within that 10-month time frame.

    Mr. Speaker, I have known that member for a very long time. I have made a career out of cleaning up his messes. He and the NDP destroyed Saskatchewan for 16 years, and now he has come here to be one of the Liberals destroying the economy of Canada. Once again, after he finishes ruining the economy for Canadians, we will clean up his mess for all Canadians so they can get ahead.

    Mr. Speaker, the member is correct; I have watched his underperformance in the provincial assembly in Saskatchewan. Now, I am watching the collective underperformance of all 13 of the Saskatchewan Conservative MPs.

    Let me remind folks today that we are announcing uranium development in northern Saskatchewan. This week, I was at SUMA announcing waste water and sewer projects, and water projects for three cities. This government is on the move, and as I mentioned before, that is great news. We are just getting started.

    Mr. Speaker, today, the Liberals announced they are adopting a third of our gas relief plan for just a third of the year, but residents in the Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay do not just drive for the summer. Our plan would take excise, GST and fuel standard taxes off gas and diesel for the rest of 2026. That would cut costs at the pump by 25¢ per litre, saving $1,200 for a family of four.

    Will the Liberals end the tax grab and save Canadians 25¢ a litre?

    Mr. Speaker, British Columbians are happy to hear that we are investing in them and that we are addressing affordability for them. They are happy to hear that we are making a reduction in fuel costs from now until Labour Day. British Columbians are going to use that to go and enjoy our country as they can this summer. Maybe they will also combine that with the Canada Strong pass as they go and explore this wonderful country.

    Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Every year, seasonal workers fall victim to the EI spring gap, which is when workers in fisheries, forestry, tourism and many other sectors go without income for weeks.

    For over 10 years, the Liberals have been promising comprehensive EI reform, and they will need to keep their promise, but seasonal workers need 15 more weeks per year right now.

    When will the Liberals fix the EI spring gap once and for all?

    Mr. Speaker, employment insurance is very important for all workers in this country. That is why we improved the program and added measures for workers facing real hardships.

    It is why we have added measures to ensure that workers who are facing hard times get what they deserve as fast as they can and ensure that they have the weeks they need to stay financially viable.

    Mr. Speaker, seasonal workers are not asking for the moon. The Interprovincial Employment Insurance Alliance calculated that it would cost one penny per $100 of wages to eliminate the spring gap forever. It would cost a single penny.

    The federal government needs to understand that, while work is seasonal in the regions, the workers are permanent. They are the ones who keep regional economies going. They need 15 more weeks every year.

    Will the government finally fill the EI spring gap once and for all?

    Mr. Speaker, workers in Canada must have confidence in our EI system. That is why we added measures to support workers across the country.

    I want to work with my colleague to come up with other ideas to help workers.

    Mr. Speaker, once again, the Liberal Prime Minister is confirming that the Conservatives are the ones with real solutions, that this government has not changed and that it is incapable of solving anything.

    The Liberals are offering mere crumbs. Their announcement affects only one-third of fuel taxes for one-third of the year. Meanwhile, they will continue to pocket $10 billion a year from drivers. The real solution is to abolish all gasoline taxes.

    Why, after 10 years, are the Liberals not even capable of doing things right, not even halfway?

    Mr. Speaker, we are working to boost Canadians' purchasing power in every way we can. We are not just doing one thing; we are doing many things. We can walk, chew gum, talk to friends on the phone—we can do lots of things at the same time.

    We are working on the economy. Today's employment data shows that our economic growth is being recognized. We have reduced the gas tax. We also have a host of programs that will help Canadians get through this difficult crisis.

    Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are acknowledging that we are in a difficult crisis. Well, they have been in power for over 10 years, so who put Canada in this position? It was the Liberal government, a government that has not changed, that has remained the same for the past 10 years.

    The Liberals claim to be doing something, but it is very little. They are copying Conservative ideas, but not all of them, just some, leaving people to struggle on weekends to pay for groceries, to pay to fill up their gas tanks to get to the grocery store, go to school or get to work. Once a Liberal, always a Liberal.

    Why is this Liberal Prime Minister keeping more in his pockets than he is giving back to Canadians?

     Mr. Speaker, we know that Canadians are struggling right now. The Conservatives' approach since last summer has been to filibuster in the House.

    We are trying to move forward. This very day, we proposed a new, targeted measure to support Canadians and help consumers weather sticker shock at the pumps. This will help them directly by putting money back in their pockets.

    Mr. Speaker, all we are seeing at this point is Liberal smoke and mirrors. The Prime Minister is offering nothing more than peanuts. Canadians will save just 10¢ a litre, while he is going to rake in nearly $10 billion, taken from Canadians' pockets.

    Why will the government not implement the Conservative Party's plan to eliminate the GST on gasoline and diesel, the industrial carbon tax and the fuel standard? It would be so simple. Plus, it would help people.

    Mr. Speaker, it would be so simple and it would help people, like the 26,537 residents in her riding who have access to the Canadian dental care plan. It would be so simple for the member to support that program. It would be so simple for her to support the Canada child benefit, which allocates $67 million a year to 10,000 families in her riding.

    When the member says “peanuts”, she is talking about $2.4 billion going back to Canadians because we are eliminating the excise tax on gasoline. That is not peanuts. That is significant.

    Mr. Speaker, what I also find odd is that Canadians already pay about 20% more for gas than Americans do, while the Liberals are proposing partial relief that will cover barely a third of taxes for a third of the year. What we in the Conservative Party propose is that the Liberals keep co-opting the Conservative Party platform, but in its entirety, instead of just half of it. Then we would agree with them.

    Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the fact that we eliminated the carbon tax, which lowered the price of gas in this country by 28¢ a litre. I also find it ironic that the member opposite was part of the Quebec government that put a price on pollution with its cap-and-trade system. That is peak irony.

    Mr. Speaker, the measures announced this morning by the Liberal government are too little too late in the face of the magnitude of the cost of living crisis in Canada. The price of diesel today is $2.75 a litre. The announced tax cut of four cents a litre changes nothing for our truckers. The Liberal government is still charging eight cents a litre in GST and seven cents a litre for the clean fuel regulations. Canadians are paying 20% more for gas than Americans.

    Will the Liberal government stop patting itself on the back and start working for all Canadians?

    Mr. Speaker, like the people watching us on TV, I must give the member an A in theatre but perhaps a C in math.

    The fact is that we are leaving $2.4 billion in the pockets of truckers. I look forward to seeing the people of Saint‑Nicolas and Lévis. I hope he will put this video on his platforms to inform all truckers in the Quebec City region that we are there for them and that we understand that lowering the price of diesel will also help with food costs. We know that the price of diesel has an impact on logistics. We will continue fighting for Canadians every single day.

    Mr. Speaker, over the past year, Canadians have navigated a rapidly changing and increasingly fragmented world, one that is more complex, more volatile and more unpredictable. In this environment, Canadians have done what they have always done. We have rolled up our sleeves, looked out for one another and adapted. This work belongs to all of us. This is Canada's moment to build together. Last night, the good people of Scarborough Southwest, University—Rosedale and Terrebonne placed their faith in this plan.

    Could the Minister of Finance please update the House on the next steps in our plan to build a strong and resilient Canadian economy and give us a—

    The hon. Minister of Finance.

    Mr. Speaker, budget 2025 presented generational investments in housing, infrastructure, productivity, innovation and our defence. It is our plan to grow the strongest economy in the G7.

    I will have the pleasure of presenting the spring economic update on April 28 to the House. This is going to be a plan that is going to help families. It is going to help our industry. It is going to help our nation prosper and to bring good news to Canadians across the nation.

    Mr. Speaker, Canadians are facing rising costs, economic uncertainty and housing challenges. The Cowichan ruling in British Columbia is now adding a new layer of doubt about whether homes in the city of Richmond are truly secure. Home ownership is the foundation of financial stability for millions of Canadians, yet the Liberals have failed to clearly defend it in court.

    Will the Prime Minister instruct his lawyers to unequivocally argue that the private property rights of Canadian homeowners must come first and finally provide the certainty Canadians demand?

    Mr. Speaker, let me be clear that Canadians can still buy, sell, inherit and renovate their homes under provincial and municipal law.

    We disagreed with the Cowichan ruling and appealed it on September 8, 2025. We believe that the Cowichan decision requires legal clarity. That is why the government will pursue all legal options through the appeal process. We will protect private property owners and uphold the Constitution without fearmongering.

    Mr. Speaker, the government filed its appeal at the last second, but here is the thing: In 2018, the government instructed its lawyers to not make the argument that fee simple property is supreme while the case was in the lower courts. Unfortunately for the property owners involved, the government cannot mount an appeal with an argument that it did not make originally.

     I ask the minister to please help Canadians and all of us understand how the government intends to win a court case with an argument it cannot make.

     Mr. Speaker, again, we are appealing the Cowichan ruling, and we will be pursuing all legal options.

     Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government avoids the question, hiding behind appeals and technical definitions instead of stating a clear and substantive position. This is pattern. In court and in backroom agreements, the Liberals refuse to say whether they will stand up for Canadian homeowners. Canadians deserve certainty.

    Will the Prime Minister direct lawyers to argue that the private property rights of Canadian homeowners must come first, yes or no?

    Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. Canadians can still buy, sell, inherit and renovate their homes under provincial and municipal law.

    We disagree with the Cowichan ruling, which we appealed on September 8, 2025. We believe that this decision requires legal clarity. That is why the government will pursue all legal options through the appeal process.

    We will protect property rights and uphold the Constitution.

     Mr. Speaker, appealing the decision is not the question. The government still has not said whether it is arguing that Canadian homeowners' private property rights come first. I will keep asking this question until there is a clear answer.

    Will the Liberals make that position clear in court and in all future agreements, yes or no?

     Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has asked us to state the position of the Government of Canada clearly. We disagree with the decision of the Supreme Court of British Columbia. We have decided to appeal that decision in order to pursue a different outcome. At trial we defended fee simple, and we believe that more clarity is needed, particularly on the issue of private property rights.

    These debates are legal debates. The appropriate forum for them to take place is through the appeal process, not on the floor of the House of Commons.

    Mr. Speaker, the Cowichan ruling has created uncertainty for homeowners and first nations in B.C., calling into question whether private property rights are secure. Canadians are already struggling with affordability. They should not have to wonder whether or not they own their own homes. Cowichan themselves said that they did not seek to invalidate private property ownership.

    Will the Prime Minister direct his lawyers to thoroughly argue in court that the private property rights of Canadian homeowners must be a priority as well?

    Mr. Speaker, as I have told the House, we are appealing the decision, but what I would like to point out is that courts are one way of settling the aboriginal title and negotiations are another. This is what we have done in that member's jurisdiction.

     We have been working with the Government of British Columbia as well as the Haida Nation. It has been two years since the Haida title agreement has been in place in the province of British Columbia. The sky has not fallen. Private property is protected under the Haida agreement.

    Mr. Speaker, this could have been avoided. The Liberal government's secret approach to agreements, such as the Musqueam rights recognition agreement, without transparency or clear protections for private property, has added to the anxiety private property owners are already experiencing. The consequences are uncertainty, stalled sales and the potential to derail previous reconciliation efforts.

    Will the Prime Minister commit today that no future agreements will be signed unless they explicitly protect and prioritize the private property rights of Canadian homeowners?

    Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. This band of Conservatives is what is sowing dissent and anxiety in Canada. The government is being crystal clear. We support—

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    I did not really hear all the words there, but it was an interruption, so the minister may start from the top.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    The Speaker: He might have to start from the top again if the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola continues.

    The hon. minister has the floor.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    The Speaker: I think it is the hon. member for Lakeland. The hon. member will—

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    The Speaker: Let us just all take a moment. We do not have the required silence. Unfortunately, I cannot hear all the banter, so I do not know who is to blame, or who was first, and all of that.

    Let us have some quiet so the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure can start from the top and answer this very important question on this very important issue.

     Mr. Speaker, I will reinforce the concerns this side of the House has about the anxiety and fearmongering the Conservatives are pushing on this issue.

    This is a very serious issue. The government supports the appeal. The government supports the rights of private property owners. The government supports reconciliation. We will pursue the course of action of appealing the superior court decision in B.C. We will see justice and clarity on this.

    We do not need the politics being played by the Conservatives to make this worse for Canadians.

     Mr. Speaker, what I am seeing today from the government is a government pursuing a policy of confusion that has the whole province of British Columbia upset. Earlier today in question period, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations said that the government will pursue all legal options.

    Can the minister clarify for British Columbians whether that includes an argument to protect the private property rights of the British Columbians impacted by the Cowichan decision, yes or no? I would like a straight answer, in good faith.

    Mr. Speaker, Canada disagrees with the B.C. Supreme Court's ruling, and we appealed it on September 8. We are committed to maintaining legal clarity and stability for private land ownership. Further legal clarity is required to address the decision, particularly as it relates to private property rights.

    Mr. Speaker, the Cowichan ruling has raised very real concerns about the security of property rights in Canada. At a time of high costs and economic uncertainty, Canadians should not be questioning the ownership of their homes.

    The Liberals negotiated the Musqueam agreement in secret, with no transparency, leaving homeowners unable to sell and builders unwilling to invest, all during a housing crisis.

    Will the Liberals commit to protecting Canadian rights by ensuring no future agreements are signed without clearly stating that private properties come first and are protected?

    Mr. Speaker, our government has made it clear, first by appealing the decision and then by making clear statements that we not only stand for property rights but also defend them.

    The concern here is that the opposition is not interested in the answer. What its members are interested in is fearmongering, spreading misinformation, driving mistrust in the market and creating economic uncertainty. That is what they are about. We are about making sure we are protecting property rights, building a strong economy and pursuing reconciliation.

    Mr. Speaker, I held a town hall with business leaders in my riding, and I expected to hear about tariffs and red tape. Instead, the number one concern by far was this: Do we still even own our own homes?

    Decisions such as the Cowichan ruling and the Liberals' secret Musqueam agreement are shaking confidence in property rights. Investment is freezing, builders are backing off and uncertainty is growing. People are starting to wonder if we are drifting toward that “you will own nothing and be happy” mantra.

    Is that where the Prime Minister is taking us, or will he instruct his lawyers to defend the property rights of Canadian homeowners, yes or no?

    Mr. Speaker, reconciliation and economic development go hand in hand. Through litigation, we are defending private property. For those nations where we are in negotiations with the Government of British Columbia and first nations, it is an opportunity to sit down at the table and actually be clear that private property is excluded, so we will continue through litigation, as well as through negotiation.