Session overview
- Taxation dominated Question Period, with Conservatives demanding elimination of all three federal taxes on gasoline (excise tax, clean fuel standard, and GST on both) for the full year to save 25Âą a litre, while the government defended its decision to suspend only the excise tax at 10Âą a litre for four months.
- The ethics of Finance Minister's involvement in the Alto high-speed rail project was raised repeatedly, with Conservatives alleging he failed to properly recuse himself despite acknowledging a conflict of interest linked to his partner's role as a vice-president at Alto, and accusing Liberals of filibustering the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics for 12 hours to block the minister's appearance.
- The Bloc QuĂ©bĂ©cois pressed the Prime Minister on the U.S. reclassification of steel and aluminium tariffs â now applied at 25% on the total value of products containing those materials rather than on the steel and aluminium content alone â and demanded concrete action for affected Quebec and Canadian businesses.
- Military pay was contested, with Conservative members alleging that soldiers deployed overseas are taking home up to $1,500 less per month due to reductions in out-of-country living allowances introduced with only six days' notice, despite the government's announced pay raises of 8%, 13% and 20%.
- The NDP raised concerns about grocery giants committing fraud through deceptive weight labels on meat and proposed a unanimous consent motion to ban surveillance pricing; the motion was denied.
- Francophone media funding was raised by the Bloc Québécois, who argued that the CRTC's addition of 15 Global News stations to the Fond pour les nouvelles locales indépendantes without increasing its budget will cut francophone Quebec media funding by half.
John Brassard, as chair of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, confirmed on the record that the committee had been in its 12th hour of a Liberal filibuster on an amendment Conservatives support, that the motion calls on the finance minister to explain his claim of having recused himself from Alto decisions when evidence suggests he did not, and that the Prime Minister had publicly promised less showboating and more substantive debate at committee â making this the exchange that most concretely revealed an active procedural obstruction of a specific accountability process.
Barrett cites the specific legal obligation on ministers, names the Alto project, identifies the finance minister's partner as a vice-president, references the minister's own recusal communication to the Prime Minister, and makes a single clear ask: will the minister end the filibuster and come to committee.
Asked specifically why the government would not remove all federal taxes on gas to save Canadians 25Âą a litre, Thompson responded exclusively by citing $8 billion to 5 Wing Goose Bay, $12 million for local defence companies and Bay du Nord â none of which addressed fuel taxes, affordability at the pump or the question asked.
Outstanding questions
- Pierre Poilievre (Exchanges 1â6) repeatedly asked why the Prime Minister would not eliminate all three Liberal taxes on gasoline â the excise tax, the clean fuel standard and the GST on both â for the entire year; the government never explained why the GST and the clean fuel standard were excluded from the relief package.
- Yves-François Blanchet (Exchanges 7â9) asked what concrete action the government would take immediately for Quebec and Canadian businesses facing the new U.S. tariff calculation method applying 25% to the total value of products containing steel or aluminium; the Prime Minister cited progress in overall tariff levels but gave no specific measure for affected businesses.
- James Bezan and Scott Anderson (Exchanges 35â37) asked why soldiers deployed overseas were effectively receiving a pay cut of up to $1,500 a month due to reductions in out-of-country living allowances announced with only six days' notice; the Minister of National Defence cited pay raise percentages and housing investments without addressing the living allowance reductions.
- Gabriel Hardy (Exchanges 30â31) asked why the Finance Minister, having acknowledged to the Prime Minister that he needed to recuse himself from the Alto high-speed rail project due to a conflict of interest, nonetheless participated in debates, answered questions and voted on the project between 12 and 16 times; the Minister of Transport did not address the specific conduct alleged.
- Martin Champoux (Exchanges 17â18) asked whether the Prime Minister would increase funding for the Fond pour les nouvelles locales indĂ©pendantes to offset the loss caused by adding 15 Global News stations without a budget increase, which he said would cut francophone Quebec media funding by half; the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture cited existing programs without committing to a funding increase.
Why not follow the Conservative plan to save 25Âą a litre by eliminating all three Liberal taxes on gasoline (excise tax, RĂšglement sur les combustibles propres, and GST on those taxes) for the full year?
Names three specific federal taxes (taxe d'accise, RĂšglement sur les combustibles propres, TPS) and asks a clear comparative policy question, but the ask is somewhat rhetorical given the framing.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, il y a trois taxes fédérales et libérales sur l'essence: la taxe d'accise, la nouvelle taxe sur le carbone du premier ministre libéral, soit le RÚglement sur les combustibles propres, et la TPS qui s'applique aux deux. Malgré l'augmentation des prix et du coût de la vie, le premier ministre veut simplement suspendre l'une de ces taxes à cause de la pression conservatrice. Pourquoi ne pas suivre le plan conservateur pour faire économiser 25 ¹ le litre aux consommateurs en éliminant toutes les taxes libérales pour toute l'année?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, there are three federal and Liberal taxes on gasoline: the excise tax, the Liberal Prime Minister's new carbon tax that they call the clean fuel standard and the GST, which is charged on both of those. Despite skyrocketing prices and the rising cost of living, the Prime Minister only wants to suspend one of these taxes, and that is the result of pressure from the Conservatives. Why not follow the Conservative plan to save consumers 25Âą a litre by getting rid of all the Liberal taxes for the whole year?
The government has a comprehensive affordability plan including suspension of the excise tax, middle-class tax reductions, the Allocation canadienne pour l'Ă©picerie, and other programs totalling $20,000 per family per year.
Lists several programs (suspension de la taxe d'accise, réduction des taxes, Allocation canadienne pour l'épicerie) but does not engage with the specific three-tax framing or explain why only one tax is being suspended.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le gouvernement a un plan global afin d'augmenter l'abordabilité pour les Canadiennes et les Canadiens, y compris la suspension de la taxe d'accise sur l'essence, la réduction des taxes pour la classe moyenne, l'Allocation canadienne pour l'épicerie et les besoins essentiels, et tous les autres programmes, ce qui comprend 20 000 $ par famille par année.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the government has a comprehensive plan to make life more affordable for Canadians, and that includes suspending the excise tax on gasoline, lowering taxes for the middle class and providing the Canada groceries and essentials benefit and other programs. All of that amounts to $20,000 per family per year.
Given that Statistics Canada reports the gap between rich and poor is greater than ever, why not eliminate all Liberal taxes on gasoline to help the poorest Canadians?
References a Statistics Canada report on the wealth gap and frames gas tax as a tax on the poor, but the ask repeats Exchange 1 and is partially buried in rhetoric.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la classe moyenne et les pauvres souffrent plus aprÚs un an de ce premier ministre libéral, selon Statistique Canada, qui a publié un rapport indiquant que l'écart entre les plus riches et tous les autres est plus grand que jamais. Ce premier ministre imprime de l'argent qui cause de l'inflation, qui gonfle les avoirs des milliardaires et gonfle le coût de la vie pour tout le reste. La taxe sur l'essence, c'est une taxe sur les pauvres. C'est une taxe sur l'épicerie, une taxe sur les gens dans le besoin. Pourquoi le premier ministre ne veut-il pas éliminer toutes les taxes libérales sur l'essence pour venir en aide aux plus pauvres au Canada?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, a year into this Liberal Prime Minister's mandate, the poor and the middle class are suffering. That is according to Statistics Canada, which published a report indicating that the gap between the rich and everyone else is greater than ever. This Prime Minister prints money, which causes inflation, and inflation makes billionaires richer and drives up the cost of living for everyone else. The gas tax is a tax on the poor. It is a tax on groceries, a tax on people in need. Why does the Prime Minister not want to get rid of all Liberal gas taxes so as to help the poorest people in Canada?
The Prime Minister noted he governs federally (not provincially), that inflation is below the Bank of Canada's target, and that wages are growing at 4.7% per year, about twice the rate of inflation.
Deflects by noting provincial taxes are larger, then cites inflation below Bank of Canada target and 4.7% wage growth, but does not address the Statistics Canada report on wealth inequality or the specific tax ask.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, tout d'abord, je suis le premier ministre du Canada, pas le premier ministre de l'Ontario, pas le premier ministre du QuĂ©bec, pas le premier ministre de ColombieâBritannique. Les plus grandes taxes sur l'essence sont des taxes provinciales. Ensuite, en ce qui concerne le taux d'inflation au Canada, il est plus bas que la cible de la Banque du Canada. Par ailleurs, l'augmentation des salaires des Canadiennes et des Canadiens est de 4,7 % par annĂ©e, soit environ deux fois le taux d'inflation.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am the Prime Minister of Canada, not the Premier of Ontario, the Premier of Quebec or the Premier of British Columbia. The biggest gas taxes are provincial taxes. Second, Canada's inflation rate is lower than the Bank of Canada's target. Moreover, Canadians' wages have gone up by 4.7% per year, which is about double the inflation rate.
With Canada having the highest grocery price inflation in the G7 and paying 20% more at the pumps, why does the Prime Minister only remove one of the three Liberal taxes (excise tax, fuel standard, GST on those taxes) and only for a third of the year, rather than following the full Conservative plan to reduce gas prices by 25Âą a litre?
Cites Canada having the highest grocery price inflation in the G7 and 20% higher pump prices, names all three specific taxes, and poses a clear comparative ask, though it is a repeat of prior exchanges.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there are three Liberal taxes on gasoline. There is the excise tax and the new Liberal carbon tax that they call the fuel standard, and then they charge the GST on those other taxes. Because of Conservative pressure, the Prime Ministerâ
Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, there are three Liberal taxes on gasoline. There is the excise tax and there is the new Liberal carbon tax they call the fuel standard, and then they charge the GST on those other two taxes. With Canada having the highest grocery price inflation in the G7 and paying 20% more at the pumps, we put pressure on the Prime Minister, and he has partially backed down, removing only one of those taxes and only for a third of the year. Why does the Prime Minister not follow our full plan to reduce gas prices by 25Âą a litre by getting rid of all the taxes for all the year?
The government is cutting the excise tax by 10Âą a litre on gasoline and 4Âą on diesel, has already cut the consumer carbon tax by 18Âą per litre, and is recycling excess oil-price revenues to Canadians; the Conservative proposal would increase the deficit by more than $3 billion.
Directly specifies the excise tax cut (10Âą a litre for gasoline, 4Âą on diesel), references the prior 18Âą consumer carbon tax cut, and quantifies the fiscal cost of the Conservative proposal at more than $3 billion, engaging substantively with the specific ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what the government is proposing is to cut the excise tax, 10Âą a litre for gasoline and four cents on diesel. We have already cut the consumer carbon tax, 18Âą per litre. We are recycling all the excess revenues from higher oil prices to Canadians. What we are not doing is what the Leader of the Opposition is proposing, which is to substantially increase the deficit, something he is regularly against, by more than $3 billion, because the government can count.
Given that the deficit is up 100% since the Prime Minister took office and Statistics Canada reported this week that the gap between rich and poor is greater than ever, why not remove all the Liberal gas taxes for the whole year instead of just a third?
References the Statistics Canada report on the wealth gap published 'just this week' and the deficit doubling, but the rhetorical framing about 'money printing' and 'Liberal arrogance' dilutes the specific ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what he is not doing is increasing the deficit? It is only up by 100% since he took office. Does he even read his own budget, or does he want Canadians not to know what is inside? In fact, there is all the money printing that he does, because he is famous for causing inflation and has made a career out of it. Statistics Canada has made it clear that the gap between rich and poor is now greater than it has ever been, in a report published just this week. One of the biggest taxes on the poor is the gas tax. Instead of just removing a third of the tax for a third of the year, why not get rid of the entire Liberal tax on gas for the whole year?
The Prime Minister defended his record as a central bank governor (inflation below 2% at both the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England) and stated that wages in Canada are growing at more than twice the rate of inflation, meaning Canadians are getting ahead.
Pivots to touting his central bank record (inflation below 2% at Bank of Canada and Bank of England) rather than addressing the deficit claim or the Statistics Canada report, then notes wages growing at twice the rate of inflation without citing sources.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, one thing I have learned in my economics education is that one has to study history and look at numbers. My record as a central bank governor is inflation less than 2% at the Bank of Canada and inflation less than 2% at the Bank of England. Let us get back to where we are today, which is that wages in this country are growing at more than twice the rate of inflation. I will spell it out for the member opposite: That means Canadians are getting ahead.
Why does the Prime Minister not learn from failed economic experiments and get rid of all the taxes on gas for all of the year, given Canada's worst food price inflation, investment, housing costs, and household debt in the G7?
Levels multiple broad accusations (housing crisis in London, worst inflation in the G7, worst food price inflation, worst investment, worst housing costs, worst household debt in the G7) but the ask is the same repeated question with heavy rhetorical packaging and a personal attack.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Prime Minister has learned all the wrong lessons. Not only did he cause the housing crisis in London and not only did he cause the worst inflation in the G7 when he was the bank governor over there, he advised Justin Trudeau to print money here, causing inflation. Since arriving in Canada, he has given us the worst food price inflation in the G7, the worst investment in the G7, the worst housing costs in the G7 and the worst household debt in the G7. Why does the Prime Minister not learn his lesson from all the failed economic experiments that only benefit insiders with tax havens like him, and get rid of all the taxes on gas for all of the year?
The Prime Minister cited IMF confirmation that Canada will have the second-fastest growth in the G7 this year, the best fiscal position in the G7, and the highest foreign direct investment per capita in the world.
Does not address any of the specific claims about food inflation, investment, or housing; instead cites IMF confirmation of Canada as second-fastest growth in the G7 and best fiscal position in the G7, and claims highest foreign direct investment per capita â pivoting entirely away from the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, I feel like I am in the presence of students. On that account, I do not think the Leader of the Opposition would pass the exam with those answers. As the IMF confirmed yesterday, Canada will have the second-fastest growth in the G7 this year. As the IMF confirmed yesterday, we have the best fiscal position in the G7, point final. As we have confirmed, we have the highest foreign direct investment per capita in the world.
Given that food prices are rising faster in Canada than any other G7 country, Canadian households are the most indebted in the G7, housing costs are the highest in the G7, and RBC reported the worst investment in the G7 today, why not get rid of all the taxes on gas for all the year?
Opens with 'inflation of Liberal arrogance' and then lists claims about food prices, household debt, housing costs, and an RBC report on investment, but the ask is pure repetition of earlier exchanges with almost entirely rhetorical framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, oh, the Liberal arrogance. We could cut through it with a knife. This is someoneâ
Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, what we have over there is inflation of Liberal arrogance. Right now, the Prime Minister wants to tell Canadians that they have never had it so good, when food prices are rising faster in Canada than in any other country in the G7, when Canadian households are the most indebted in the G7, when Canadian housing costs are the most elevated in the G7 and when, just today, RBC reported that we have the worst investment in the G7. The question again is this. Canadians cannot afford gas at the pump. Why not get rid of all the taxes for all the year?
Teach us a lesson, oh great one.
The Prime Minister stated that wages are growing at more than twice the rate of inflation and that rents have gone down relative to incomes for 33 straight months.
Does not engage with the RBC report or any of the specific claims; instead repeats wages growing at more than twice the rate of inflation, notes rents have declined relative to incomes for 33 straight months, and ends with a joke about running out of time.
Source text
Mr. Speakerâ
Mr. Speaker, to learn a lesson, one has to have ears to hear. There are some on the benches opposite who have been listening, and they will notice that wages are growing at more than twice the rate of inflation in this country. They will notice that rents have gone down relative to incomes for 33 straight months. They will notice that I am out of time.
The White House has changed the tariff calculation on products containing significant steel or aluminium content, applying 25% to the total product value rather than just that content; has Canada raised this with the US and will it secure abandonment of this new calculation method?
Identifies a specific, recent US policy change â modifying the tariff calculation on steel and aluminium so that 25% applies to the total product value rather than just the steel/aluminium content â and asks a clear, answerable accountability question about whether Canada will secure abandonment of this method.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le premier ministre sâest fait Ă©lire sur la base de ses compĂ©tences en Ă©conomie, et il allait protĂ©ger le Canada contre les droits de douane. Or, la Maison-Blanche vient de modifier le mode de calcul des droits de douane dĂ©jĂ illĂ©gaux sur lâacier et lâaluminium. Sur tous les produits qui contiennent une valeur significative dâacier ou dâaluminium, au lieu de payer les droits de douane dĂ©jĂ illĂ©gaux sur cette valeur, on paie dĂ©sormais 25 % de la valeur totale du produit. Je prĂ©sume que le gouvernement a soulevĂ© ce changement auprĂšs des Ătats-Unis. Est-ce que le Canada va obtenir lâabandon de ce mode de calcul des droits de douane par la Maison-Blanche de Donald Trump?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was elected because of his economic expertise and because he was going to protect Canada from tariffs. However, the White House has just changed the way it is calculating its already illegal tariffs on steel and aluminum. From now on, derivative articles of steel and aluminum will be subject to a 25% tariff on their full customs value, rather than to the already illegal tariffs on the value of the metal inputs. I assume that the government has raised this change with the United States. Is Canada going to get the Donald Trump and the White House to do away with this method of calculating tariffs?
The Prime Minister said only that the government is working on this and working with companies, workers, and unions to build a strong Quebec and a strong Canada.
Answers only that 'oui, nous travaillons lĂ -dessus' and mentions working with companies, workers, and unions for a strong Quebec and Canada â a near-total non-answer that does not address the specific tariff calculation change or any concrete action.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, oui, nous travaillons là -dessus et nous travaillons avec nos sociétés, nos compagnies, nos travailleurs et nos syndicats afin de bùtir un Québec fort et un Canada fort.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, yes, we are working on that and we are working with our corporations, businesses, workers and unions to build Quebec strong and build Canada strong.
With hundreds of Quebec companies facing production cuts or closures and BRP's stock value dropping by a third as reported this morning in Le Journal de Montréal, what will the Prime Minister do now to help businesses and workers affected by this new Trump tariff measure?
Cites the concrete example of BRP's stock value dropping by a third as reported in Le Journal de Montréal that morning, and asks what concrete action the government will take now for affected businesses and workers.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, est-ce que le premier ministre pourrait ĂȘtre moins prĂ©cis? Ce sont littĂ©ralement des centaines et des centaines d'entreprises quĂ©bĂ©coises dĂ©pendantes du marchĂ© amĂ©ricain qui vont devoir fermer des quarts de travail, couper la production et, peut-ĂȘtre, dans certains cas, fermer les portes. Ce matin, on voyait dans Le Journal de MontrĂ©al que BRP a vu sa valeur boursiĂšre tomber du tiers. Je veux savoir ce que le premier ministre va faire maintenant pour venir en aide aux entreprises et aux travailleurs qui sont victimes de ce nouveau coup de tĂȘte du prĂ©sident Trump.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister be any less specific? Literally hundreds and hundreds of Quebec businesses that depend on the American market will have to cut shifts, cut production and, in some cases, perhaps even shut down. This morning, Le Journal de Montréal reported that BRP has lost a third of its stock market value. I want to know what the Prime Minister is going to do right now to help the businesses and workers who are victims of President Trump's latest whim.
The Prime Minister stated that negotiations are ongoing with the Americans on renewing the ACEUM, with priority sectors being aluminium, acier, bois d'Ćuvre, and automobile, noting that the starting point is the best trade agreement in the world with the United States.
References ongoing ACEUM renewal negotiations and names priority sectors (aluminium, acier, bois d'Ćuvre, automobile) but does not announce any specific concrete measures to help affected businesses and workers, and does not address the BRP example.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous sommes en train de faire des nĂ©gociations avec les AmĂ©ricains en ce qui concerne le renouvellement de l'ACEUM. Les secteurs les plus importants, ce sont les secteurs de l'aluminium, de l'acier, du bois d'Ćuvre et de l'automobile. Les nĂ©gociations vont continuer, mais, le point de dĂ©part, c'est le meilleur accord commercial du monde avec les ĂtatsâUnis.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we are currently negotiating with the Americans to renew CUSMA. The most important sectors are the aluminum, steel, softwood lumber and automotive sectors. Negotiations will continue, but our starting point is the world's best trade agreement with the United States.
Given that tariffs have worsened with every White House intervention since early 2025, what does the Prime Minister tell Quebec and Canadian companies facing suddenly multiplied tariffs on their products and at risk of closing without concrete government intervention?
Makes a pointed critique that tariffs have worsened with each White House intervention and asks what the government tells companies facing suddenly multiplied tariffs, but the ask is broad and partly rhetorical.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, en effet, ça se fait, admettre qu'on ne le sait pas des fois. Nous avons eu droit, depuis le début de 2025, à beaucoup de mots et à trÚs peu de gestes. Les droits de douane empirent chaque intervention de la Maison-Blanche. Le premier ministre ne peut pas simplement agiter son CV, faire des discours et recruter des transfuges. Que dit le premier ministre aux entreprises québécoises et canadiennes qui voient les droits de douane infligés à leurs produits soudainement multipliés et qui risquent de fermer sans une intervention concrÚte du gouvernement?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is okay for people to admit that there are things they do not know. Since early 2025, we have heard a lot of talk but seen very little action. Tariffs are making every one of the White House's moves worse. The Prime Minister cannot just wave his resumé around, give speeches and recruit floor crossers. What does the Prime Minister have to say to Quebec and Canadian businesses that are suddenly facing a sharp increase in tariffs on their products and that could be forced to shut down if there is no meaningful government intervention?
Since April, following the last election, US tariffs on Canada have fallen from over 10% to 5.5% to now 4.4%, representing progress, though the government wants more and is working hard; the Prime Minister referenced the message from Terrebonne about working for a strong Quebec and a strong Canada.
Provides specific tariff reduction figures (from over 10% to 5.5% to 4.4% since April) which is relevant and data-grounded, but pivots to a political reference to Terrebonne rather than detailing concrete support for affected companies.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, depuis le mois d'avril, aprÚs la derniÚre élection, les droits de douane américains ont baissé pour le Canada. Ils étaient de plus de 10 %, ils sont passés à 5,5 %, et ils sont maintenant de 4,4 %. Oui, nous avons fait du progrÚs. Nous en voulons plus. Nous travaillons fort sur tout cela. Je crois que le message de Terrebonne était clair. Il faut travailler pour un Québec fort et pour un Canada fort.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the U.S. tariff rate for Canada has gone down since last April, since the election. The rate was over 10%, but it went down to 5.5% and is now sitting at 4.4%. We have made progress, but we want more. We are working hard on all this. I believe the message from Terrebonne was clear. We must work to build Quebec strong and Canada strong.
Given that Canadians are paying 35% more because of rising global oil prices and Liberal taxes are driving prices even higher in Newfoundland and Labrador where fuel is a necessity, when will the Liberals remove all federal taxes on gas so Canadians can save 25Âą a litre for the rest of the year?
Mentions the 35% higher global oil price figure and frames gas as a necessity in Newfoundland and Labrador, but the ask is a repetition of earlier Conservative gas-tax exchanges with regional framing rather than new specifics.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, 35% is how much more Canadians are paying because of rising global oil prices. In Newfoundland and Labrador, fuel is not a choice; it is a necessity. Truckers need it to deliver goods, and families need it just to get through the week, yet Liberal taxes are driving prices even higher, while the Liberals pretend that a partial tax cut is real relief. Their plan applies to only a fraction of the taxes they collect, while they take billions from struggling Canadians. When will the Liberals stop punishing Canadians and finally remove all federal taxes on gas so that Canadians can save 25Âą a litre for the rest of the year?
The Minister of Fisheries cited $8 billion going to 5 Wing Goose Bay and $12 million to Newfoundland and Labrador companies invested in long-term defence capacity building and Bay du Nord, without addressing gas taxes.
The Minister of Fisheries does not address gas taxes or affordability at all, instead citing $8 billion to 5 Wing Goose Bay, $12 million for defence companies, and Bay du Nord, which have no connection to the gas tax question asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand today and talk about what this government is doing for Canada and for Newfoundland and Labrador. Eight billion dollars are going to 5 Wing Goose Bay, and $12 million to Newfoundland and Labrador for companies that are invested in long-term defence capacity building and Bay du Nord. While the member reads her prepared notes, on this side of the House, we are doing the hard work.
With the Single Parent Association of Newfoundland and Labrador reporting that high gas prices force single parents to choose between heating their home and putting food on the table, and with the Liberal government still collecting $10 billion in fuel taxes this year, will the Liberals stop half measures and deliver the full 25Âą-a-litre Conservative plan for real relief?
Cites the Single Parent Association of Newfoundland and Labrador's report on impossible decisions and the figure of $10 billion in fuel taxes the government will still collect, adding regional specificity, but the ask is again the same Conservative gas-tax plan.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Single Parent Association of Newfoundland and Labrador in that member's riding reported that the high gas prices are driving single parents to make impossible decisions, such as whether to heat their home or put food on the table, yet $10 billion is how much this Liberal government will still collect in fuel taxes this year, while people in Newfoundland and Labrador pay some of the highest gas prices at the pump in Canada. The Liberals' plan saves just pennies, while costs hit rural and remote communities the hardest. Conservatives have a plan to cut 25Âą a litre for the rest of the year. Will they stop these half measures and deliver real relief for hard-working Canadians?
The Minister listed government programs supporting rural communities (infrastructure for roads, schools, hospitals) and families (Canada child benefit, school nutrition programs, $10-a-day child care), and stated that Conservatives voted against all of them.
The Minister does not address the Single Parent Association report, the $10 billion fuel tax figure, rural gas prices, or any element of the gas tax question, instead listing unrelated programs (Canada child benefit, school nutrition, $10-a-day child care) and claiming Conservatives voted against them.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, while this member from Newfoundland and Labrador continues to read the same tired notes, on this side of the House we are working to support rural communities with infrastructure available for roads, schools and hospitals. We are working to support families with the Canada child benefit, school nutrition programs, $10-a-day child care, and on and on the list goes. By the way, the Conservatives voted against all of it.
If the Liberal government is serious about affordability, why not implement the full Conservative plan to save Canadians 25Âą a litre on gas and $1,200 a year by cutting the GST on fuel, the fuel excise tax, and the Liberal fuel standard, rather than delivering only a partial measure?
Frames the government's measure as delivering a third of the Conservative proposal for a third of the year, and specifically names all three taxes (GST on fuel, fuel excise tax, Liberal fuel standard) with a $1,200-a-year savings figure, but is largely a repetition of prior exchanges.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as always, the Liberals are claiming collaboration but delivering obfuscation. They are accepting the Conservative argument that the gas prices in this country are too high, but, as always, they give a half measure, not even half, delivering a third of the proposed tax cut the Conservatives have offered, and for a third of the year. If the Liberal government is serious about affordability, why not do what the Conservatives have been proposing to save Canadians 25Âą a litre on gas, $1,200 a year, cut the GST on fuel, cut the fuel excise tax and cut the Liberal fuel standard?
The Minister of Energy and Natural Resources claimed the government has already cut taxes on gasoline by 28Âą a litre since becoming the new government, reduced taxes for the middle class, cut the GST, and eliminated development charges that would reduce the price of a home by $200,000.
Claims a 28Âą-a-litre cut since becoming the new government without breaking down the components clearly, mentions middle-class tax cuts, GST reduction, and development charges elimination â some of which are unrelated to gas taxes â and does not directly engage with the 'third of the tax for a third of the year' framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let me help the member opposite. We have already cut taxes on gasoline by 28Âą a litre since becoming the new government. We have reduced taxes for the middle class. We have cut the GST. We have eliminated development charges, which would reduce the price of a home by $200,000 in my riding. This is what affordability looks like.
For people in Elgin, St. Thomas and London who need to drive to work and drive their kids to school, why will the Liberal government not drop 25Âą a litre right now rather than deliver a partial measure?
Invokes constituents in Elgin, St. Thomas and London for whom driving is a necessity, but the ask is purely rhetorical repetition with a joke about hot air rather than new facts or a sharper accountability angle.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, if my car ran on hot air, I would not care about the tax cut after that answer. However, most Canadians do not have the ability to do what these Liberal insiders are doing and weather all of this. The Liberals blame Iran, neglecting the fact that 25Âą a litre goes directly into government coffers. This is a very real suggestion. People in Elgin, St. Thomas and London do not view driving as a luxury. They know it is a necessity to get around, to get to work, to drive the kids to school. Why will the Liberal government not take these concerns seriously and drop 25Âą a litre right now?
Oh, oh!
The Minister challenged whether a 28Âą-a-litre cut on gasoline and $200,000 savings on a new home constitute 'hot air,' implying these are real and substantial measures.
Responds to the 'hot air' remark by repeating the 28Âą-a-litre figure and the $200,000 home price claim, engaging somewhat with the exchange but not addressing the specific concerns about rural driving necessity or the Liberal fuel standard.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am confused. Is 28Âą cents a litre hot air? Twenty-eight centsâ
Mr. Speaker, I am confused. Is a 28Âą-a-litre cut on gasoline hot air? Is $200,000 on a new home hot air? If that is what he thinks is hot air, maybe he needs to go back to school.
Given that the government is still collecting up to $10 billion more from taxpayers and only removing a third of the fuel tax for a third of the year, will the Prime Minister vote with the Conservatives to remove the whole tax for the full year and bring real relief at the pumps?
States that the government will still collect up to $10 billion from taxpayers and frames the measure as removing only a third of the fuel tax for a third of the year, giving some factual grounding, but the ask is again the same repeated Conservative plan.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, after years of Conservative pressure, the Liberals have announced a watered-down version of our Conservative plan. The Liberals are only removing a third of the fuel tax for a third of the year, all while still collecting up to $10 billion more from taxpayers. I have heard from the community I represent in Hamilton, and that is not enough. Conservatives would remove the whole tax for the full year. Will the Prime Minister listen to Canadians, vote with us and bring real relief at the pumps?
The Secretary of State attributed high fuel costs to the war in the Middle East, listed affordability programs including affordable child care, dental care, and the groceries and essentials benefit, and stated that this week's announcement lets Canadians keep $2.4 billion at the gas pumps.
Does not address the $10 billion figure or the 'third of the tax for a third of the year' framing; instead attributes high fuel costs to the war in the Middle East, lists unrelated programs (child care, dental care, groceries and essentials benefit), and cites $2.4 billion returned to Canadians at the pumps.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, try as they might, the Conservatives are not fooling Canadians, and that member is not fooling Hamiltonians. They know that fuel is too expensive because of the war in the Middle East, and they also know that our Liberal government is meeting the moment with a tax cut for 22 million Canadians, with affordable child care and dental care for families, and with the groceries and essentials benefit to deliver up to $1,800 for families with a modest income. As a result of this week's affordability announcement, we are letting Canadians keep $2.4 billion in their hands, in their pockets after they earn that hard-earned money, at the gas pumps. Canadians can see right through the Conservative bluster on this issue.
Given that the Prime Minister has confirmed Conservatives have the solution, will he vote with the Conservatives to cut all the Liberal gas taxes for a full year, saving families an extra 25Âą per litre and $1,200 per year?
Claims the Prime Minister confirmed Conservatives have the solution and asks him to vote with them on the full plan, with the $1,200 per year savings figure, but the ask is purely rhetorical and repeats earlier exchanges without new evidence.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister confirmed that Conservatives have the solution for Canadians, but he is delivering only a third of our plan. Liberals are keeping the GST and the clean fuel standard. It is time to cut all the tax for a full year. Our plan will cut an extra 25Âą per litre, which will save families $1,200 per year. This is what Hamilton wants. Let us make it a great day for Canadians. Will the Prime Minister vote with us and bring real relief at the pumps?
The Minister stated that cancelling the excise tax on gas saves 10Âą a litre (28Âą since the government took office), putting $2.4 billion in families' pockets, and accused Conservatives of saying no to all affordability measures including the groceries and essentials benefit.
Repeats the 28Âą-a-litre and $2.4 billion figures already cited in Exchange 12, then pivots to attacking Conservatives for voting against affordability measures â deflecting rather than explaining why the government chose a partial rather than full measure.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the party of ânoâ cannot seem to take yes for an answer. We just cancelled the excise tax on gas, saving 10Âą a litre for a family, 28Âą since we became the government, which puts $2.4 billion in the pockets of families. What do these guys say? They say no. They say no to all our affordability issues, no to the groceries and essentials benefit. They do not say yes to Canadians. We are building a real plan for real families and real affordability.
Zimmer cited the government's own nutrition north report showing 60.7% of Inuit in the Northwest Territories and 76% in Nunavut are food-insecure, and asked whether Liberals will vote for the Conservative motion to remove all federal taxes on gas and diesel to save Canadians 25Âą a litre.
Cites specific figures from the government's own nutrition north report (60.7% and 76% food insecurity) and poses a clear yes/no ask about supporting the Conservative motion to remove all federal taxes on gas and diesel.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, after 11 years of Liberals, affordability is getting worse for northerners, despite what they tell us. I quote from their own recent nutrition north report: In the Northwest Territories, 60.7% of Inuit are food-insecure. In Nunavut, 76% of Inuit experience food insecurity. Will Liberals vote for our Conservative motion to remove all federal taxes on gas and diesel, so that Canadians can save 25Âą a litre for the rest of the year, or will they keep voting for half measures?
Chartrand said the government is making life more affordable by cutting taxes for 22 million Canadians, implementing a permanent national school food program saving families $800 a year, and cutting costs for jet fuel affecting northern communities.
The minister lists affordability measures (tax cuts, school food program, jet fuel costs) but never addresses the specific Conservative motion or the food insecurity statistics cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we are making life more affordable in the north, not just in big cities but across northern indigenous communities. We have cut taxes for 22 million Canadians so that northern families can keep more in their pocket. The permanent national school food program is saving families $800 a year. We are also cutting costs for jet fuel, which is going to impact communities throughout north of 60. We are tackling food costs and building all-season infrastructure in the north and the Arctic. We are building for all of Canada.
Champoux asked whether the Prime Minister will increase the Fonds pour les nouvelles locales indépendantes after the CRTC added 15 Global News stations to it without raising its funding, which he said will cut francophone Quebec media funding in half.
Champoux identifies a specific CRTC decision adding 15 Global News stations to the Fonds pour les nouvelles locales indĂ©pendantes without increasing funding, and asks whether the Prime Minister will increase the Fund â a clear, concrete ask grounded in a specific regulatory development.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, l'information rĂ©gionale au QuĂ©bec est en pĂ©ril. C'est encore plus vrai depuis que le Conseil de la radiodiffusion et des tĂ©lĂ©communications canadiennes, ou CRTC, a ajoutĂ© 15 stations de Global News au Fond pour les nouvelles locales indĂ©pendantes sans en hausser le financement. Il y a plus de mĂ©dias, mais ils se partagent les mĂȘmes sommes d'argent. Hier, quand nous avons alertĂ© le ministre, il nous a accusĂ©s de diviser entre francophones et anglophones. Au contraire, nous voulons que tous les mĂ©dias rĂ©gionaux d'information soient adĂ©quatement soutenus. La rĂ©alitĂ©, c'est que, dans la situation actuelle, les mĂ©dias francophones au QuĂ©bec perdent la moitiĂ© de leur financement. Le premier ministre va-t-il bonifier le Fonds pour corriger le tir?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, regional news in Quebec is in jeopardy, especially now that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC, has added 15 Global News stations to the independent local news fund without increasing the funding. There are more media outlets, but they are all sharing the same amount of funding. Yesterday, when we alerted the minister to this, he accused us of pitting francophones against anglophones. On the contrary, we want all regional news media to receive adequate funding. The reality is that in the current context, French-language media outlets in Quebec are losing half of their funding. Will the Prime Minister increase the fund to fix this problem?
Miller said the government will always strongly support the francophone media sector through the crĂ©dit d'impĂŽt pour la main-d'Ćuvre journalistique, the Fonds des mĂ©dias du Canada, and the Initiative de journalisme local.
Miller lists existing support programs (crĂ©dit d'impĂŽt pour la main-d'Ćuvre journalistique, Fonds des mĂ©dias du Canada, Initiative de journalisme local) but does not address the specific CRTC decision or commit to increasing the Fonds pour les nouvelles locales indĂ©pendantes.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, que ce soit par le crĂ©dit d'impĂŽt pour la main-d'Ćuvre journalistique, le Fonds des mĂ©dias du Canada et l'Initiative de journalisme local, le dĂ©putĂ© sait trĂšs bien que nous allons toujours appuyer le secteur mĂ©diatique francophone d'une façon trĂšs forte de ce cĂŽtĂ©-ci de la Chambre.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the member knows full well that through measures like the journalism labour tax credit, the Canada Media Fund and the local journalism initiative, we on this side of the House will always provide strong support for the French-language media sector.
Champoux urged the government to increase the Fonds pour les nouvelles locales indépendantes, extend the journalist salary tax credit to radio and television as Quebec has done, and stop subsidizing advertising on GAFAM platforms, asking when the Prime Minister will act.
Champoux lists multiple concrete asks (increase the Fonds, extend the journalist salary tax credit to radio and TV, stop subsidizing GAFAM advertising) with urgency, though the compound nature of the asks slightly reduces precision.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, c'est le temps de passer Ă l'action. C'est sĂ»r que la solution passe aussi par la contribution des gĂ©ants du numĂ©rique aussi. En attendant, nos mĂ©dias ferment, et Ottawa n'en fait pas assez pour Ă©viter ça. PrĂ©sentement, les GAFAM se battent jusque devant les tribunaux pour ne pas collaborer. C'est pour ça que le gouvernement doit bonifier le Fonds pour les nouvelles locales indĂ©pendantes. Il doit offrir aux radios et aux tĂ©lĂ©s son crĂ©dit d'impĂŽt pour le salaire des journalistes, comme l'a fait QuĂ©bec. Il doit cesser de rĂ©compenser la publicitĂ© faite sur les plateformes des GAFAM. Il y a plein de gestes Ă poser, mais, lĂ , ça commence Ă ĂȘtre pas mal urgent de le faire. Quand est-ce que le premier ministre va agir?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is time to take action. Of course, the solution also requires big tech to contribute. In the meantime, our media outlets are shutting down and Ottawa is not doing enough to prevent that. Right now, big tech is in court fighting to avoid having to co-operate. That is why the government needs to boost the independent local news fund. It needs to make radio and television stations eligible for the journalism labour tax credit, as Quebec has done. It needs to stop rewarding advertising on platforms owned by big tech. There are plenty of things to be done, but now the need for action is becoming quite urgent. When will the Prime Minister take action?
Miller said the GAFAM must pay their fair share, and accused the Bloc of contradicting itself by not supporting the 2025 budget, which included $127 million for media.
Miller deflects by saying the Bloc should have supported the 2025 budget's $127 million investment, which does not address any of the specific asks, particularly the Fonds increase or the journalist tax credit extension.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, c'est sûr que les GAFAM doivent apporter leur juste contribution, mais si le Bloc québécois croyait vraiment ce qu'il dit, il aurait pu appuyer le budget de 2025, qui prévoyait un investissement de 127 millions de dollars.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, of course big tech must do its fair share, but if the Bloc Québécois members truly believed what they are saying, they could have supported budget 2025, which included an investment of $127 million.
Groleau noted that after the government's partial reduction, Canadians still pay 15Âą per litre in federal gas taxes, and asked whether the Prime Minister will vote in favour of the Conservative motion to suspend all federal taxes on gasoline.
Groleau anchors his question with the fact that Canadians still pay 15Âą per litre in federal gas taxes after only a partial reduction, and asks a direct yes/no whether the Prime Minister will vote for the Conservative motion â reasonably specific but the framing includes partisan rhetoric.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, hier, le premier ministre a choisi de réduire les taxes sur l'essence que d'un tiers. Résultat: les Canadiens paient toujours 15 ¹ de taxes fédérales par litre d'essence. L'inflation libérale des 11 derniÚres années coûte cher aux Canadiens, aux Beaucerons, aux Beauceronnes, aux travailleurs et aux entreprises. C'est un manque de respect envers les citoyens et une déconnexion totale de ceux-ci. Ma question est pour le premier ministre. Est-ce qu'il va voter en faveur de notre motion conservatrice, qui va suspendre toutes les taxes fédérales sur l'essence?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister chose to reduce gas taxes by a measly one-third. As a result, Canadians are still paying 15Âą in federal tax per litre of gas. The Liberal inflation of the last 11 years is costly for Canadians, the people of Beauce, workers and businesses. This is a sign that the government does not respect its citizens and is completely out of touch. My question is for the Prime Minister. Will he vote in favour of our Conservative motion, which will suspend all federal taxes on gasoline?
Joly said the government suspended the taxe d'accise on gasoline as a measure welcomed across Canada, citing also the income tax cut and the Allocation canadienne pour l'Ă©picerie et les biens essentiels.
Joly announces the suspension of the taxe d'accise on gasoline as a response but does not answer whether the Prime Minister will vote for the Conservative motion, and attributes inflation to 'la guerre en Iran' rather than addressing the specific tax ask.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les QuĂ©bĂ©cois et les Canadiens se sont rĂ©veillĂ©s hier avec une bonne nouvelle. Il Ă©tait important de trouver des moyens d'aider les mĂ©nages quĂ©bĂ©cois Ă gĂ©rer les effets de l'inflation due Ă la guerre en Iran. C'est pourquoi nous avons dĂ©cidĂ© de suspendre la taxe d'accise sur l'essence. C'est une mesure qui a Ă©tĂ© trĂšs bien reçue au QuĂ©bec et partout au pays. Ăa fait suite Ă des investissements importants que le gouvernement a faits pour soutenir les familles partout au QuĂ©bec et au pays. Pensons Ă la baisse d'impĂŽt qui a Ă©tĂ© annoncĂ©e il y a quelques mois, mais aussi Ă l'Allocation canadienne pour l'Ă©picerie et les biens essentiels.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, yesterday Quebeckers and Canadians woke up to some good news. It was important to find ways to help Quebeckers cope with the effects of the inflation caused by the war in Iran. That is why we decided to suspend the excise tax on gasoline. This measure has been very well received in Quebec and across the country. This follows significant investments made by the government to support families across Quebec and the country. For instance, there was the tax cut we announced a few months ago, as well as the Canada groceries and essentials benefit.
Groleau claimed the federal government collected $10 billion in additional gas tax revenue and asked whether the Prime Minister will stop taking money from citizens' pockets and reduce the cost of living.
Groleau cites $10 billion in additional federal gas tax revenue as a factual anchor but the question devolves into rhetorical accusations about 'enrichissant leurs petits amis' and the ask is broad and vague.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, 4 Âą par litre d'essence, ça ne va rien changer. C'est une vraie farce. Les Canadiens Ă©touffent avec le coĂ»t de la vie inflationniste des libĂ©raux. En taxe fĂ©dĂ©rale sur l'essence, le gouvernement a perçu 10 milliards de dollars supplĂ©mentaires. C'est 10 000 millions de dollars. Au lieu de gonfler les coffres d'Ottawa et d'enrichir leurs petits amis encore Ă coups de milliards de dollars, les libĂ©raux peuvent-ils aider le vrai monde, notre monde? Ma question est simple. Est-ce que le premier ministre va arrĂȘter de piger dans les poches des citoyens et rĂ©duire le coĂ»t de la vie?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, four cents per litre of gas is not going to make any difference. What a joke. Canadians are suffocating thanks to the Liberals' inflationary cost of living. The government has collected an extra $10 billion in federal gas tax. That is ten thousand million dollars. Instead of padding Ottawa's coffers and making their rich buddies billions of dollars richer, can the Liberals help real people in our communities? My question is straightforward. Will the Prime Minister stop picking Canadians' pockets and lower the cost of living?
Joly said the government suspended the taxe d'accise on gasoline, cut taxes and provided grocery support, and said Quebec's new premier also has a responsibility to address the cost of living.
Joly restates the measures already announced (taxe d'accise suspension, income tax cut, grocery benefit) without engaging the $10 billion revenue figure, and deflects partly to Quebec's provincial responsibility.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, à Ottawa, nous faisons notre travail. Nous faisons ce qui est nécessaire. Nous avons suspendu la taxe d'accise sur l'essence, nous avons baissé l'impÎt des Québécois et des Canadiens et nous avons fait en sorte d'aider les gens pour contrer les effets de l'inflation alimentaire lorsqu'ils vont à l'épicerie. Mon collÚgue vient du Québec comme moi, et il sait trÚs bien que Québec doit également apporter sa contribution. Nous allons travailler avec la nouvelle premiÚre ministre du Québec, qui a promis dans son programme de contrer l'inflation alimentaire et le coût de la vie au Québec.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, here in Ottawa, we are doing our job. We are doing what has to be done. We suspended the excise tax on gasoline, we lowered income tax for Quebeckers and Canadians, and we have taken steps to help people offset the effects of food inflation at the grocery store. My colleague and I are both from Quebec, and he is well aware that Quebec also has a contribution to make. We are going to work with Quebec's new premier, whose platform promised to fight food inflation and the cost of living in Quebec.
Lefebvre argued that of the $10 billion in additional unbudgeted gas tax revenue, $5 billion could be used to eliminate all federal taxes on gasoline for all of 2026, and asked why the government would not adopt that Conservative proposal.
Lefebvre makes a specific arithmetic argument â using the government's own $10 billion figure to propose redirecting $5 billion to eliminate all gas taxes for 2026 â giving the question concrete factual grounding and a clear proposal.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, câest un fait: le gouvernement libĂ©ral va empocher 10 milliards de dollars supplĂ©mentaires avec la hausse du coĂ»t de lâessence pour les Canadiens et les Canadiennes. Les libĂ©raux ont annoncĂ© hier le tiers de notre proposition jusquâen septembre. Il sâagit de 10 milliards de dollars supplĂ©mentaires non budgĂ©tĂ©s. Pourquoi ne prend-on pas les 5 milliards de dollars de taxes supplĂ©mentaires pour enlever toutes les taxes sur lâessence pour toute lâannĂ©e 2026 et donner enfin un peu dâoxygĂšne aux Canadiens, comme le propose le Parti conservateur?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is a fact: The Liberal government is set to pocket an extra $10 billion as a result of rising gas prices for Canadians. Yesterday, the Liberals announced a measure that amounts to a third of our proposal and is set to end in September. This amounts to an extra $10 billion that was not budgeted for. Why not use the $5 billion in additional tax revenue to eliminate all taxes on gas for the whole of 2026 and finally give Canadians some breathing space, as the Conservative Party is proposing?
Lightbound confirmed that starting Monday Quebecers will see a reduction of 10Âą per litre, acknowledged the government does not control oil prices, and then pivoted to noting that 32,456 constituents in Lefebvre's riding benefit from the RĂ©gime canadien de soins dentaires.
Lightbound confirms the 10Âą per litre reduction starting Monday and attributes higher oil prices to geopolitical tensions, but does not engage the $10 billion/$5 billion arithmetic argument, and pivots to dental care statistics.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, il est vrai que nous ne contrĂŽlons pas les cours du pĂ©trole, qui ont augmentĂ© en raison des tensions gĂ©opolitiques au MoyenâOrient, de la guerre en Iran, comme lâa mentionnĂ© ma collĂšgue. Cependant, ce que nous contrĂŽlons, c'est ce que nous faisons pour aider les Canadiens. Jâai le plaisir de rĂ©itĂ©rer quâĂ partir de lundi, les QuĂ©bĂ©cois vont voir une rĂ©duction de 10 Âą par litre, ce qui va aider les familles Ă faire face au coĂ»t de la vie. Une autre chose que nous contrĂŽlons, ce sont les votes que nous faisons Ă la Chambre. Dans la circonscription de mon collĂšgue, ce sont 32 456 de ses concitoyens qui ont accĂšs au RĂ©gime canadien de soins dentaires. Pourquoi est-ce qu'il s'oppose tout le temps Ă dĂ©fendre son monde?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, it is true that we do not control oil prices, which have risen due to geopolitical tensions in the Middle East and the war in Iran, as my colleague mentioned. However, what we do control is what we do to help Canadians. I am pleased to reiterate that, as of Monday, Quebeckers will see a reduction of 10Âą per litre, which will help families cope with the cost of living. Another thing we control is the votes we cast in the House. In my colleague's constituency, 32,456 of his constituents have access to the Canadian dental care plan. Why does he constantly refuse to stand up for his constituents?
Lefebvre cited specific Quebec property price increases â 6.9% overall, 6.3% for single-family homes, 5.3% for row houses and plexes, and 7.7% for condos â and asked when the Liberal government will adopt the Conservative plan to stimulate residential construction and eliminate GST on all new homes.
Lefebvre cites specific Quebec real estate price increases (6.9% overall, 6.3% unifamilial, 5.3% rangée/plex, 7.7% condo) and poses a clear ask about adopting the Conservative plan to eliminate GST on all new homes.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, lâaccĂšs Ă la propriĂ©tĂ© est un enjeu prioritaire pour les Canadiens et les Canadiennes, mais il est difficile dây rĂȘver actuellement, tout le monde est d'accord sur ça ici. Le prix de vente moyen dâune propriĂ©tĂ© au QuĂ©bec a augmentĂ© de 6,9 %. Pour une maison unifamiliale, il a augmentĂ© de 6,3 %; pour une maison en rangĂ©e ou un plex, de 5,3 %; et pour un condo, de 7,7 %. Quand le gouvernement libĂ©ral adoptera-t-il notre plan pour stimuler la construction rĂ©sidentielle et Ă©liminer la TPS sur toutes les nouvelles maisons?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, home ownership is a priority issue for Canadians, but that dream feels out of reach at the moment. Everyone here agrees on that. The average selling price for a home in Quebec has increased by 6.9%. More specifically, prices in Quebec increased by 6.3% for a single-family home, 5.3% for a townhouse or home in a multiplex and 7.7% for a condo. When will the Liberal government adopt our plan to boost residential construction and eliminate the GST on all new homes?
Lightbound cited the government's existing elimination of GST on new homes for first-time buyers and the Maisons Canada plan, noting Quebec was the first province to sign on, but did not address eliminating GST on all new homes.
Lightbound points to the government's existing GST elimination for first-time buyers and the Maisons Canada plan, which is partially responsive but does not address eliminating GST on all new homes as asked.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, ça me permet de rappeler une des premiĂšres mesures que ce gouvernement a mises en Ćuvre, câest-Ă -dire dâĂ©liminer la TPS sur les maisons neuves pour les premiers acheteurs. Nous ne nous arrĂȘtons pas lĂ . Avec Maisons Canada, nous avons un plan pour bĂątir Ă une Ă©chelle sans prĂ©cĂ©dent partout au pays. Je suis trĂšs fier de rappeler Ă mon collĂšgue que le QuĂ©bec est la premiĂšre province Ă sâĂȘtre entendue pour Maisons Canada. Cela va permettre de construire des logements dâun bout Ă lâautre du pays et d'augmenter lâoffre pour rĂ©duire la pression sur les prix, mais câest tout Ă fait remarquable dâentendre enfin les conservateurs sâintĂ©resser le moindrement au logement.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the House that one of the first things this government did when it took office was to eliminate the GST on new homes for first-time homebuyers. We did not stop there. With Build Canada Homes, we have a plan to build at an unprecedented scale across the country. I am very proud to remind my colleague that Quebec was the first province to reach an agreement under the Build Canada Homes program. This program will make it possible to build homes across the country and increase the housing supply to ease pressure on prices, but what is truly remarkable is finally seeing the Conservatives show even the slightest interest in housing.
Martel cited a 24% increase in duplex prices in Saguenay over the past year and a Desjardins study forecasting further deterioration, and asked when the Liberal government will put more money in young Quebecers' pockets so they can buy their first home.
Martel cites a 24% duplex price increase in Saguenay over one year and references a Desjardins study, providing some factual grounding, though the ask â 'putting more money in young Quebecers' pockets' â is broad.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, les libĂ©raux essaient de nous faire croire quâils Ă©coutent les prĂ©occupations des gens, mais la rĂ©alitĂ© des Canadiens est tout autre. Au Saguenay, les prix des duplex ont grimpĂ© de 24 % depuis un an. En plus, une Ă©tude de Desjardins indique que la situation va empirer. Les jeunes veulent avoir leur propre maison, mais ils ne voient pas le bout du tunnel. Quand le gouvernement libĂ©ral va-t-il remettre plus dâargent dans le portefeuille des jeunes QuĂ©bĂ©cois afin quâils puissent acheter leur premiĂšre maison?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals would have us believe that they listen to people's concerns, but Canadians' reality suggests otherwise. In Saguenay, the price of a duplex has climbed 24% in the past year, and a Desjardins study suggests that things are going to get worse. Young people want to own their own home, but they see no light at the end of the tunnel. When will the Liberal government put more money back in young Quebeckers' pockets so they can buy their first home?
Joly said the government abolished GST on first home purchases and pledged to help bring good investments to Martel's constituency for housing construction.
Joly mentions the GST abolition on first home purchases and vague promises of investment in the region but does not address the Desjardins study, the 24% figure, or any specific mechanism to help young buyers.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, jâai beaucoup de respect et dâamitiĂ© pour mon collĂšgue. Nous allons travailler ensemble pour faire en sorte de rĂ©duire les loyers au SaguenayâLac-Saint-Jean. Nous savons que lâaccĂšs Ă la propriĂ©tĂ© est Ă©galement important, câest pourquoi nous avons fait en sorte dâabolir la TPS sur lâachat dâune premiĂšre maison. Notre plan fonctionne. Nous devons en faire plus et nous allons aussi faire en sorte de faire atterrir de bons investissements dans sa circonscription pour la construction de logements. Je sais quâil y a plusieurs projets dans sa circonscription et dans la rĂ©gion, et câest une prioritĂ© pour le gouvernement.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I like and respect my colleague very much. We will work together to reduce the cost of rent in SaguenayâLac-Saint-Jean. We know that access to property ownership is important too, which is why we eliminated the GST on first home purchases. Our plan is working. We have to do more, and we are also going to work to bring good investments in housing construction to his riding. I know there are a lot of projects happening in his riding and the region, and that is a priority for the government.
Gladu asked the Secretary of State to inform Canadians how the new government is bringing down costs for essentials at home in the face of global instability.
This is a government-backbench softball asking the Secretary of State to explain the government's new affordability measures, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, during this time of geopolitical volatility, we never know when the next major shock is coming. We need serious leadership and a real plan to build a strong and more independent Canadian economy. Since the conflict in the Middle East began, this global volatility has impacted the wallets of Canadians. We need more direct support for them. Yesterday morning, we saw just that. Can the Secretary of State inform Canadians how our new government is bringing down costs for essentials at home in the face of instability abroad?
Long announced the suspension of the excise tax on gasoline and diesel, saving Canadians 10Âą per litre, as a measure to make life more affordable amid higher gas prices and global uncertainty.
Long provides specific information â suspension of the excise tax on gasoline and diesel saving Canadians 10Âą per litre â directly answering the question posed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for SarniaâLambtonâBkejwanong for that great question and for her determination to do what is right for Canada. Yesterday, the Prime Minister announced that we will be suspending the excise tax on gasoline and diesel, meaning Canadians will save 10Âą per litre on gasoline, putting more money in Canadians' pockets as they face higher gas prices and global uncertainty. On this side of the House, we are focused on making life more affordable for Canadians. The other side continues with the rhetoric.
Kirkland cited polling showing 74% of Canadians say food and gas costs are crushing them and 43% are $200 away from not paying bills, and asked why the Prime Minister will not fully cut taxes on gas and food.
Kirkland cites polling data (74% of Canadians say food and gas costs are crushing them; 43% are $200 away from not paying bills) and a direct quote attributed to the Prime Minister, giving some factual grounding, but the ask is broad and rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, let us get serious. Folks in Oshawa are reaching their breaking point. Seventy-four per cent of Canadians say the cost of food and gas is crushing them. Forty-three per cent of Canadians are just $200 away from not paying their bills. Families are cutting back and putting off major decisions, while young people are losing hope that they will ever get ahead. Despite all this, the Prime Minister stands here and has the audacity to claim that affordability is the best it has ever been and âCanadians are getting aheadâ. Why will the Prime Minister not fully cut taxes on gas and food so that Oshawa families can actually get ahead?
Turnbull said the government has suspended the excise tax saving 10Âą per litre for four months and 28Âą per litre since taking power, along with the Canada groceries and essentials benefit and a tax cut for 22 million Canadians.
Turnbull mocks the Conservative leader, mentions 10Âą per litre savings and 28Âą since the government took power, and lists other measures, but never addresses the Prime Minister's alleged quote or the specific polling figures cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, far be it from any member on this side of the House to deprive the Conservative leader of driving the Conservative bus deeper down into the valley of unpopularity. They can rest assured that we will save the Conservatives money at the gas pumps along the way, with savings of 10Âą per litre with the excise tax having been suspended for the next four months and 28Âą per litre since this government got into power. That is in addition to the Canada groceries and essentials benefit. That is in addition to a tax cut for 22 million Canadians. We are the party that is making affordability a reality.
Kirkland cited a poll showing 61% of Canadians face financial whiplash and asked whether the Prime Minister will stop the half measures and fully cut taxes on gas and food by adopting the Conservative plan to suspend all federal gas taxes through to the end of 2026.
Kirkland cites a polling figure (61% of Canadians face financial whiplash) and frames a clear contrast between the Conservative proposal (suspend all federal gas taxes to end of 2026) and the Liberal measure, but the ask is essentially a repeat of the previous exchange.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Oshawa and Durham Region families cannot pay their bills or put food on the table with these Liberal half measures and talking points. After years of the Liberal government spending, 61% of Canadians say that they are facing financial whiplash. Conservatives have put forward a real plan to suspend all federal gas taxes through to the end of 2026. However, once again, the Liberals are taking a great Conservative idea and watering it down. Will the Prime Minister stop the half measures, deliver real relief and fully cut taxes on gas and food for Oshawa families and all Canadians?
Turnbull attacked the member for voting against the groceries and essentials benefit and the tax cut for 22 million Canadians, and raised a Durham Region SMR project creating 21,700 jobs.
Turnbull attacks the member's voting record, pivots to listing government measures she voted against, and then pivots to a Durham Region SMR project â never addressing the question of fully cutting gas and food taxes.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is hard to take this member seriously when she has voted against every affordability measure that impacts families in Durham Region. She stood up in this House and voted against the groceries and essentials benefit. She has voted against a tax cut for 22 million Canadians. The Conservatives say they want us to cut taxes at the pump. That is exactly what we are doing and yet they are opposed to it. We are making life more affordable. Where was the member when we announced a major project to give jobs to 21,700 members of the Durham Region community for the SMR projectâ
Rowe claimed the Liberal Prime Minister spent more recklessly than Justin Trudeau and that nearly a third of Canadians cannot cover their bills, and asked when the government will get serious about affordability.
Rowe references that nearly a third of Canadians cannot cover their bills but the question is largely rhetorical and vague, asking broadly 'when will the government get serious about affordability' without a specific policy ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this Liberal Prime Minister claimed he was going to have responsible budgets and fix Canada's economy. Instead, he actually spent more in reckless spending than Justin Trudeau, and now Atlantic Canadians are having to spend more and struggle more. Atlantic Canadians are working harder, and yet they are not making any headway. Nearly a third of Canadians say they do not even have enough to cover their bills. We are in serious trouble. When will the government get serious about affordability?
Thompson highlighted Bay du Nord, $8 billion at 5 Wing Goose Bay, $12 million for local companies, the renewal of the Atlantic fisheries fund, and the Atlantic wild salmon fund as examples of government action in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thompson lists Bay du Nord, 5 Wing Goose Bay investment, and the Atlantic fisheries fund and Atlantic wild salmon fund â none of which address the affordability question asked.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the the opposition member from Newfoundland and Labrador that Bay du Nord is a way that we support Newfoundland and Labrador with jobs and money in the economy. That is $8 billion in 5 Wing Goose Bay and $12 million to support local companies. I also want to remind this member, who has fishing and harvesters in his riding, of the renewal of the Atlantic fisheries fund and Atlantic wild salmon fund. We are doing the work. We are not reading tired notes and we are not following poor politics.
Rowe noted that the fisheries minister voted against his private member's bill that would have allowed struggling Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to fish for food seven days a week, and asked whether she will now allow Newfoundlanders to fish seven days a week to help with their grocery bills.
Rowe pivots to a very specific accountability question â will the fisheries minister allow Newfoundlanders to fish seven days a week, referencing his own private member's bill that the minister voted against â giving a clear, answerable yes/no ask grounded in a concrete legislative history.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I just asked a question about affordability and I cannot believe I did not hear anything about affordability. I guess that is no surprise, considering this fisheries minister voted against my bill that would have allowed struggling Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to fish for food seven days a week, so on Wednesdays, to go out in their small boats, take a fish for food and bring down their grocery bills. Will this fisheries minister allow Newfoundlanders to fish seven days a week to help with their grocery bills?
Thompson said the private member's bill was defeated for good reasons, confirmed an open consultation on the recreational fishery is underway with a 'what we heard' report coming shortly, followed by select consultations, after which she will put a plan together for this season.
Thompson acknowledges the private member's bill was defeated, explains the open consultation process underway, commits to releasing a 'what we heard' report shortly and then select consultations leading to a plan for the current season â a substantive if incomplete answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we debated the private member's bill and it was defeated for very good reasons. What I will remind this member from Newfoundland and Labrador is that we followed due diligence with an open consultation on what the recreational fishery needs to look like. A âwhat we heardâ report will be coming out very shortly. We will follow with select consultations and then, based on what I have heard, I will put a plan together for this season. That is how we set policy that actually aligns with the needs of communities. Again, it is not just tired notes and rhetoric.
Aboultaif said nearly three-quarters of Canadians report rising prices for food and gas are straining their finances, and asked whether the Prime Minister will adopt the Conservative plan to cut all federal taxes on gas and food.
Aboultaif cites polling (nearly three-quarters of Canadians say rising prices strain their finances) but the question is essentially a repeat of previous exchanges and the ask is broad and rhetorical.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, he makes promises, but the Prime Minister fails to make life more affordable. Canadians are experiencing financial whiplash under the Liberal government. Nearly three-quarters say rising prices for essentials like food and gas are straining their finances. Unpredictable conditions mean cutting back on spending and delaying major financial decisions. Canada is less affordable under the current Prime Minister. Will he help Canadians by adopting our Conservative plan to cut all federal taxes on gas and food?
Olszewski said she hears strong support for the government's affordability, energy and economic growth priorities in Alberta, and highlighted the temporary removal of the federal excise tax on gas as helping families, farmers, truck drivers and business operators in the province.
Olszewski mentions the temporary excise tax removal on gas as helpful to families, farmers, truck drivers and business operators in Alberta, which is tangentially relevant but does not engage any specific detail of the question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what I hear when I travel through Alberta is how supportive people are of the government's advancing priorities for Albertans, the things that matter most to them: affordability, energy and economic growth. The announcement to temporarily remove the federal excise tax on gas will help families, farmers, truck drivers and business operators throughout the province. We are working hard to build a country where Albertans and all Canadians can have greater prosperity.
Hardy alleged that the Minister of Finance, having recused himself from the Alto high-speed rail project in September over a conflict of interest, nonetheless debated, defended, promoted and voted on the project between 12 and 16 times without anyone being informed, and asked why the minister will not appear before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics to explain.
Hardy cites a specific timeline (Minister recused himself in September), alleges between 12 and 16 instances of the minister debating, defending, promoting and voting on the Alto high-speed rail project despite the recusal, and asks a clear procedural accountability question about appearing before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le ministre des Finances s'est rĂ©cusĂ© au mois de septembre dernier relativement au projet de train Ă grande vitesse Alto. Pourtant, personne n'a Ă©tĂ© mis au courant. Entre 12 et 16 fois, il a dĂ©battu et dĂ©fendu le projet, a rĂ©pondu Ă des questions, en a fait la promotion et a mĂȘme votĂ© sur le projet. Moi, je suis allĂ© voir ce que voulait dire « se rĂ©cuser ». Ăcoutons bien ça: c'est l'action de se retirer d'une affaire par conflit d'intĂ©rĂȘts ou par incompĂ©tence. Je ne sais pas ce que les libĂ©raux vont prendre dans cette phrase-lĂ , mais, si c'est relativement aux conflits d'intĂ©rĂȘt, pourquoi le ministre des Finances ne vient-il pas au ComitĂ© permanent de l'accĂšs Ă l'information, de la protection des renseignements personnels et de l'Ă©thique s'expliquer? Les QuĂ©bĂ©cois ont le droit de savoir.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance recused himself last September from the Alto high-speed rail project, and yet no one was informed. From 12 to 16 times, he debated and defended the project, answered questions, promoted it and even voted on it. I looked up the meaning of the word ârecuseâ and listen carefully to this: To recuse is to remove oneself from a matter due to a conflict of interest or incompetence. I do not know what the Liberals are going to make of that sentence, but if conflicts of interest come to mind, why does the Minister of Finance not explain himself to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics? Quebeckers have a right to know.
MacKinnon said the Minister of Finance already answered the question and the government follows the strictest ethics rules, then pivoted to noting that Quebecers have taken note of the Conservative leader's opposition to the Alto high-speed rail project.
MacKinnon says the Minister of Finance answered the question and the government follows strict ethics rules, then pivots to Conservative opposition to the Alto project â a deflection that does not address the specific allegation of a recusal breach or the committee appearance request.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le ministre des Finances a bien rĂ©pondu Ă cette question et le dĂ©putĂ© sait fort bien que nous suivons avec rigueur les rĂšgles les plus strictes en matiĂšre d'Ă©thique dans le monde. Pour ce qui est dâAlto et du train Ă grande vitesse, les QuĂ©bĂ©cois â je rassure le dĂ©putĂ© â ont bien notĂ© l'opposition du chef des conservateurs Ă ce grand projet national unificateur qui va changer la donne en matiĂšre de mobilitĂ© au Canada.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, this question was properly answered by the Minister of Finance and the member knows full well that we carefully follow the strictest ethics rules in the world. Concerning Alto and high-speed rail, I can assure the member that Quebeckers have noticed the Conservative leader's opposition to this major, unifying national project that is set to be a game-changer for mobility in Canada.
Hardy asks why the Prime Minister will not tell Liberal members to stop obstructing the ethics committee and send the finance minister to answer questions about recusals and the potential conflict of interest with Alto.
The question identifies a specific committee motion, names the specific witnesses sought (ministre des Finances, société Alto, commissaire à l'éthique), and cites the ongoing filibuster with colourful specifics, but the ask is framed rhetorically toward the Prime Minister about his 'minions.'
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous allons entamer au ComitĂ© permanent de l'accĂšs Ă l'information, de la protection des renseignements personnels et de l'Ă©thique la 12e heure de monologue libĂ©ral par les mĂȘmes dĂ©putĂ©s qui nous parlent de tout, sauf de la motion qui est Ă l'Ă©tude. La motion demande simplement que le ministre des Finances, que la sociĂ©tĂ© Alto et que le commissaire Ă l'Ă©thique viennent rĂ©pondre aux questions par rapport aux rĂ©cusations ou au potentiel conflit d'intĂ©rĂȘts. Nous avons entendu parler de la route Transcanadienne, du fleuve Saint-Laurent. Nous avons mĂȘme entendu parler des dindons sauvages sur l'autoroute 50, mais rien relativement Ă la motion. Est-ce que le premier ministre pourrait dire Ă ses « minions » d'arrĂȘter d'entraver le travail du ComitĂ© et envoyer le ministre des Finances afin qu'il rĂ©ponde aux questions?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we are about to begin the 12th hour of Liberal monologues at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy, and Ethics, by the same members who talk to us about everything except the motion under consideration. The motion simply asks that the Minister of Finance, Alto and the Ethics Commissioner come to answer questions regarding recusals or potential conflicts of interest. We have heard about the Trans-Canada Highway and the St. Lawrence River. We have even heard reports of wild turkeys on Highway 50, but nothing related to the motion. Could the Prime Minister tell his minions to stop obstructing the committee's work and send the Minister of Finance to answer questions?
MacKinnon thanks a colleague for raising the autoroute 50 file and says the finance minister follows ethics provisions rigorously, then pivots to defending the high-speed rail investment.
The minister deflects entirely to championing the autoroute 50 issue and high-speed rail, never addressing the filibuster or why the finance minister should not appear at committee.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, si le dĂ©putĂ© a entendu parler de l'autoroute 50, c'est parce que je remercie mon collĂšgue ArgenteuilâLa PetiteâNation qui fait en sorte que l'enjeu de l'autoroute la plus dangereuse au QuĂ©bec est constamment mis de l'avant. Pour ce qui est de mon collĂšgue le ministre des Finances, il est rigoureux et suit Ă la lettre les dispositions en matiĂšre d'Ă©thique. Je le rĂ©pĂšte: en matiĂšre de train Ă grande vitesse, nous ne prendrons aucune leçon du Parti conservateur pour ce qui est de la mobilitĂ© et de cet investissement gĂ©nĂ©rationnel qui va changer la donne pour la mobilitĂ© au Canada.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the member heard about Highway 50 because I was thanking my colleague from ArgenteuilâLa Petite-Nation for constantly bringing our attention to the issue of Quebec's most dangerous highway. As for my colleague the Minister of Finance, he is meticulous and strictly adheres to ethical guidelines. Again, when it comes to high-speed rail, we will not take any lessons from the Conservative Party on mobility or on this generational investment that is set to be a game-changer for mobility in Canada.
Barrett states the law prohibits ministers from furthering family members' personal interests, notes the finance minister's partner is a vice-president at Alto, says the minister himself flagged a conflict of interest to the Prime Minister but did not recuse himself, and asks the minister to end the filibuster and appear at the ethics committee.
Barrett cites the specific legal obligation on ministers, names the Alto project, identifies the finance minister's partner as a vice-president, references the minister's own recusal communication to the Prime Minister, and makes a single clear ask: will the minister end the filibuster and come to committee.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the law is clear that ministers must not use their position to further the personal interests of their family members, but the finance minister is championing the multi-billion-dollar Alto project where his partner is a vice-president. It was the finance minister who told the Prime Minister that he was concerned about a conflict of interest because of that relationship and said that he needed to recuse himself, and Canadians agree. The problem is, that is not what he did. Now the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics wants to review the matter and have the minister come to clear the air. Instead, we have a Liberal filibuster. Will the minister end the filibuster and come to committee?
MacKinnon claims 173 Liberal MPs are championing high-speed rail as a nation-building project that will create jobs using Canadian materials.
MacKinnon does not address the conflict of interest allegation, the recusal claim, or the filibuster at all, pivoting entirely to boosterism for high-speed rail.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, who is championing high-speed rail in Canada? It is the 173 Liberal MPs on this side of the House, who are going to build major nation-building projects, including high-speed rail. It is a major project for national unity, a major project for mobility in our country and a project that will favour the building trades, men and women, and steel, aluminum and lumber. We are going to put people to work using Canadian materials, and we are going to move that train as fast as we can.
Barrett notes that even Liberal candidates oppose the $90 billion project, states the minister refuses to come to committee and the filibuster persists, and asks the committee chair why the finance minister has not been scheduled to testify on the conflict of interest.
Barrett cites the $90 billion cost, specifies the 12-hour filibuster, directs the question to the committee chair rather than the minister, and asks a concrete procedural question about why the minister has not been scheduled.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the problem for the Liberals is that even their Liberal candidates in the area know this is so unpopular that they are speaking out against this boondoggle. Canadians want accountability from the Liberals. It is $90 billion. The minister is refusing to come to committee, and there is this Liberal filibuster that persists. My question is to the chair of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. Can he tell the House why the minister has not been scheduled to appear to testify on this conflict of interest scandal?
Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right. If the minister had nothing to hide, he would have nothing to fear in coming to the ethics committee. The ethics committee will be heading into its 12th hour with the Liberals filibustering an amendment that Conservatives actually support. The motion calls on the finance minister to explain his claim that he has recused himself from decisions on Alto when it is clear he has not. Yesterday the Liberal Prime Minister promised Canadians they would see less showboating, more relevance and substantive debate at committee. If the Prime Minister truly believes that, why does he not tell his members to stand down and have the finance minister appear?
Brassard confirms the committee is in its 12th hour of Liberal filibuster on a motion calling the finance minister to explain his claim of recusal from Alto decisions, and invokes the Prime Minister's own promise of less showboating and more substantive debate at committee.
Brassard, as committee chair, confirms the 12-hour filibuster, explains the motion's substance regarding the finance minister's recusal claim from Alto decisions, and references the Prime Minister's own stated commitment to less showboating at committee â partially addressing the question though stopping short of a concrete answer on scheduling.
St-Pierre asks the Minister of Justice to explain the importance of Bill C-22 for the safety of all Canadians, noting it is supported by law enforcement across the country.
This is a government-backbench softball asking the minister to explain the importance of Bill C-22, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, le projet de loi Câ22 est de nouveau dĂ©battu Ă la Chambre aujourd'hui. Il s'agit d'un projet de loi essentiel qui contribuera Ă lutter contre des crimes graves comme l'extorsion et Ă faire progresser les enquĂȘtes policiĂšres. Cette mesure est rĂ©clamĂ©e par les forces de l'ordre partout au pays, y compris par le dĂ©putĂ© de Medicine HatâCardstonâWarner. Le ministre de la Justice peut-il expliquer Ă la Chambre l'importance du projet de loi Câ22 pour la sĂ©curitĂ© de tous les Canadiens et de toutes les Canadiennes?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-22 is being debated again in the House today. This is a vital bill that will help combat serious crimes such as extortion and that will move police investigations forward. Law enforcement agencies across the country are calling for this measure, as is the member for Medicine HatâCardstonâWarner. Can the Minister of Justice explain to the House why Bill C-22 is important for the safety of all Canadians?
Fraser says crime is increasingly digital, organized and sophisticated, and that Bill C-22, Loi concernant l'accÚs légal, gives police tools to investigate, disrupt organized crime and protect communities, urging all MPs to support it.
Fraser provides substantive information about Bill C-22, describing it as the Loi concernant l'accÚs légal, listing its purposes (combating exploitation of children, extortion, human trafficking via digital means) and noting law-enforcement support.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je remercie le dĂ©putĂ© d'HonorĂ©âMercier de sa question. La criminalitĂ© est de plus en plus numĂ©rique, organisĂ©e et sophistiquĂ©e. Les criminels utilisent l'environnement numĂ©rique pour exploiter des enfants et pour pratiquer l'extorsion et la traite des personnes. Le projet de loi Câ22, Loi concernant l'accĂšs lĂ©gal, donne aux policiers les outils pour enquĂȘter, pour perturber le crime organisĂ© et pour protĂ©ger nos collectivitĂ©s. Nos policiers partout au QuĂ©bec et au Canada demandent ces outils. Nous les Ă©coutons. J'invite tous les dĂ©putĂ©s Ă appuyer ce projet de loi trĂšs important pour notre pays.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Honoré-Mercier for his question. Crime is moving online and is becoming increasingly organized and sophisticated. Criminals are using the digital environment to exploit children and to engage in extortion and human trafficking. Bill C-22, an act respecting lawful access, gives police officers the tools to investigate, disrupt organized crime and protect our communities. Our police officers across Quebec and Canada are calling for these tools. We are listening to them. I urge all of Parliament to support this bill, which is so important for our country.
Bezan alleges that Liberal policy changes to out-of-pocket, out-of-country living allowances â announced with only one week's notice â are reducing some troops' take-home pay by up to $1,500, and asks why the Liberals are shortchanging frontline troops.
Bezan raises a specific policy grievance â changes to out-of-pocket, out-of-country living allowances with one week's notice, reducing take-home pay by up to $1,500 â but frames it with partisan rhetoric about a 'fake raise' without citing the specific policy instrument or date.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again, the Liberals are giving to our troops with one hand but taking with the other. The Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence love to brag about their fake raise they gave to the forces. The reality is that many of our troops are taking home less on their paycheques because of Liberal policy changes. Sadly, military families were only given one week's notice before the change to their out-of-pocket, out-of-country living allowances, in some cases reducing their take-home pay by up to $1,500. Why are the Liberals shortchanging frontline troops who are putting their lives on the line to defend Canada?
McGuinty cites pay raises of 8%, 13% and 20%, 90,000 members receiving raises, hundreds of new housing units and 800 homes under construction, and modernised application processes.
McGuinty refutes the 'fake raise' characterisation with the specific figures of 8%, 13% and 20% pay raises and mentions housing investments, but does not address the living allowance reduction or the one-week notice issue.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there is nothing fake about 8%, 13% and 20% pay raises. That is the first thing. The member knows better than to raise this subject matter, which is important, this way. Ninety thousand members of the forces are getting a pay raise. He is aware of that. We have invested in hundreds of new housing units on and off bases, 800 homes are being constructed today, and we have modernized the application process. We are making progress. I am looking forward to thoughtful and earnest suggestions for improvement. That was not one of them.
Bezan asks the defence minister to stop making excuses or bragging and instead take responsibility to help military families make ends meet, citing their sacrifices while deployed.
Bezan's follow-up is largely rhetorical, appealing to the minister's duty to troops without adding the specific policy detail from the first question, making the ask vague.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, all that bragging is just talk and no action. It is the Minister of National Defence's job to fight for the best interests of those who put on the uniform to fight for each and every one of us. These brave Canadians are deployed to Latvia and other places around the world without hesitation. They sacrifice months away from their loved ones in the name of Canada because the minister tells them they have to. It is his job to make sure they are treated as the best that this country has to offer. Instead of making excuses or bragging, will the defence minister take responsibility and help our military families make ends meet?
McGuinty says Bezan has voted against every proposal to support the forces, then lists a pay raise, $100 million for additional child care and $3.7 billion for 7,500 new housing units.
McGuinty attacks Bezan's voting record, then lists a pay raise, $100 million for child care and $3.7 billion for 7,500 new housing units, but still does not address the living allowance reductions.
Source text
That is a bit rich, Mr. Speaker. The member has voted against every single proposal to look after our forces. He has no ground to stand on. The members of the Canadian Armed Forces carry out important work on behalf of Canada here at home and around the world. We have introduced a suite of cost of living supports to support them and their families: that is, a well-deserved pay raise, $100 million for additional child care and $3.7 billion for 7,500 new housing units. Our work to support the members of the Canadian Armed Forces and their families continues each and every day.
Anderson says the minister is telling half the story because overseas living allowances are being cut by over $1,500 a month with only six days' notice, meaning frontline soldiers deployed abroad are actually taking a pay cut despite the publicised raises.
Anderson specifies the section 232 tariff date (April 6), the overseas living-allowance reductions of over $1,500 a month, and the six-days' notice given â though the question drifts from tariffs to military pay, creating some confusion.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the minister is telling us half the story about the pay raises. What he is forgetting is that overseas, reductions of over $1,500 a month are being taken back from living allowances. These are real families putting their lives on the line abroad who were given just six days' notice and are now scrambling to adjust. The Liberal government increases pay only to claw it back. The headlines all scream about increased military pay, but why are so many frontline soldiers deployed overseas actually being forced to take a pay cut?
McGuinty again cites pay increases of 8%, 13% and 20%, plus annual retention bonuses and instructor benefits, and says the forces are being collectively rebuilt.
McGuinty repeats the same pay-raise figures (8%, 13%, 20%), adds retention bonuses and instructor benefits, but again does not address the living allowance reductions or the six-days' notice issue raised.
Source text
Once again, Mr. Speaker, let us be factual: 8%, 13% and 20% pay increases; annual retention bonuses based on years of service; instructor benefits and special incentives to allow folks to move from the practising of their trades in the forces to become instructors. We are making progress. We are, all together, collectively rebuilding the Canadian Armed Forces. The members on both sides of the House are aware of this. I would welcome their thoughtful input.
Bains asks the secretary of state how Budget 2025 and the new majority government are supporting Canadians day to day amid rising global prices.
This is a government-backbench softball referencing Budget 2025 and asking how the government is supporting Canadians day to day, with no accountability dimension.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, global conflicts and chaotic and irrational decision-making with critical oil supply chains have led to increased global prices. While these events seem distant, they are already pushing prices higher at the pump and the grocery store and causing Canadians to rethink where they are booking their summer holiday. Budget 2025 laid out how Canada's new majority government will create a more independent and resilient Canadian economy. Can the secretary of state lay out how our government is supporting Canadians day to day?
Long says the government paused the excise tax on fuel (10Âą) and cut the consumer carbon tax (18Âą) for a total of 28Âą, cut taxes for 22 million Canadians, and introduced a groceries and essentials benefit of $1,900 per family this year and $1,400 per family for the next four years.
Long provides specific figures: a 10Âą excise tax pause on fuel, an 18Âą consumer carbon tax cut (28Âą total), tax cuts for 22 million Canadians, a groceries and essentials benefit of $1,900 per family this year and $1,400 per family for the next four years.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yes indeed, yesterday we paused and suspended the excise tax on fuel, which is 10Âą. We cut the consumer carbon tax. That is another 18Âą, which is 28Âą in total. We cut taxes for 22 million Canadians. The groceries and essentials benefit is $1,900 per family this year and $1,400 per family for the next four years. On this side of the House, we are going to continue to focus on bringing costs down for Canadians and making life more affordable for Canadians. The members on that side continue with the rhymes and the rhetoric.
Gill says section 232 tariffs imposed on April 6 threaten nearly 60,000 Canadian jobs in a $6 billion industry feeding a $100 billion manufacturing sector, and asks when the Prime Minister will defend Windsor workers and Canadian mould-makers since they are in Washington negotiating on their own.
Gill cites the April 6 date, section 232 tariffs, 60,000 jobs at risk, a $6 billion industry feeding a $100 billion manufacturing sector, and notes Canadian mould-makers are in Washington negotiating independently â a factually grounded question with a clear ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on April 6, the U.S. government imposed section 232 tariffs that threaten nearly 60,000 Canadian jobs and hit an industry worth $6 billion that feeds our manufacturing sector, which is worth over $100 billion. These new tariffs are hammering our mould-makers right now. Some companies are thinking of moving to the U.S., unfortunately. Canadian mould-makers are in Washington today trying to negotiate on their own because the Liberal government is refusing to do that. When will the Prime Minister show that he cares about Windsor workers and Canadian businesses and actually defend our country's economy and our jobs?
Joly pledges to be there for Windsor workers, references opening a new battery factory with 3,000 jobs alongside Premier Ford, meeting with the steel industry the previous day, working the phones, and says the entire team in Washington is activated to defend steelworkers and aluminum workers.
Joly pledges support for Windsor workers, references a meeting with the steel industry the previous day and engagement with the Minister of U.S. Trade, but does not specifically address section 232 tariffs, mould-makers, or the claim that companies are considering moving to the U.S.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, of course we will be there for the Windsor workers affected by these tariffs. That is why, also, along with Premier Ford, I was in Windsor a month ago to open a new, important battery factory with 3,000 new jobs in Windsor. That being said, we are well aware of what my colleague is referring to. I met with the steel industry again yesterday. I have been working the phones. My colleague the Minister of U.S. Trade has also been on this. Our entire team in Washington is also activated. We will defend our steelworkers. We will defend aluminum workers.
Davies alleges grocery giants first colluded to fix bread prices and are now committing fraud through deceptive weight labels on meat, and asks the Prime Minister to take action to stop the food monopoly from cheating Canadians, noting the Liberals cut Canadian food inspectors.
Davies identifies two specific practices (bread price collusion and deceptive weight labels on meat), alleges Canadian food inspectors were cut, and ties this to an affordability commitment the Prime Minister made â reasonably specific with an identifiable ask, though somewhat rhetorical in framing.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, grocery giants are ripping off Canadians again. First, they colluded to fix bread prices. Now they are committing fraud through deceptive weight labels on meat. They are literally putting their fingers on the scales to overcharge shoppers. Instead of enforcing the law, the Liberals cut Canadian food inspectors, the only way to protect consumers. The Prime Minister said he wanted to be judged on the cost of groceries. Will he take action to stop the food monopoly from cheating Canadians?
Joly says the government agrees companies should not pass costs to consumers and has engaged the Competition Bureau, pledging to be hawkish on competition and act against any form of illegal proceedings.
Joly agrees companies should not pass costs to consumers and says she has engaged the Competition Bureau to be hawkish on competition and act against illegal proceedings, but does not address the food inspector cuts or the specific deceptive weight-label fraud allegation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague that we definitely do not want companies to pass costs on to consumers. We will be there to protect consumers at a time when we know that the Competition Bureau needs to do its work. That is why my team and I have engaged the Competition Bureau. We will be hawkish on competition. We will go against any form of illegal proceedings.
Davies seeks unanimous consent for a motion that the government should ban surveillance pricing, where personal data is used by corporations to increase prices consumers pay both in store and online.
Davies moves a specific, concrete motion to ban surveillance pricing â a clear policy proposal â but it is a unanimous consent motion rather than a question, limiting its accountability value.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it I hope you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That, in the opinion of the House, the government should ban surveillance pricing, where personal data is used by corporations to increase the prices consumers pay, both in store and on line.
No.
The motion was denied; no answer was given.
The motion was denied without explanation; no substantive answer was provided.