Charles Sousa

In response to a question from Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault

“This bill does not stop freedom of expression. Our constitutional rights will stay protected. Instead, it sets rules to protect children from online predators and harmful content.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is important that every determination we make in the House abides by our Constitution and the right to freedom of expression. The act would not prohibit that. It is putting forward parameters to safeguard the most vulnerable in our society, who are underage, so they are not exposed to harmful incidents that predators are taking hold of at this time. Our expressions of freedom, the freedom that is enabled through our Constitution, will always prevail.”

In response to a question from Michael Coteau

“Children face dangers from predators and awful content online. Provinces must do everything they can under this law to protect every child in Canada.”

“Mr. Speaker, I have had the pleasure of working with my colleague over many years. I know that from his time as minister of children and youth, he has an acute awareness of the vulnerability that our children have. There are a lot of predators out there. We have a lot of activity that is lawful but awful, and we must do everything we are able to do through provincial authorities to ensure that the act is implemented to protect every child throughout Canada.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 48 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →
• Vague
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Clarity 40 of 100

  Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from William Stevenson

“This bill sets the general rules, but we should let expert regulators figure out the details to protect children. That is how regulation normally works.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is important for the House to set the tone and parameters by which we should proceed, but as with any other regulatory body, we would depend upon experts and those who execute the act to provide the appropriate parameters and safeguards to protect our children.”

“I want the House to pass this bill. The internet is not safe for children. Harmful posts and online chatbots can lead young people to anxiety, depression, and self-harm. This bill makes social media companies protect kids before harm happens. It stops kids under 16 from opening accounts, blocks people under 18 from seeing online porn, and forces platforms to remove bullying and dangerous content.”

“Mr. Speaker, today, young Canadians are growing up in a digital world. They spend hours every day online, watching videos, connecting with friends, exploring ideas and posting memories of their lives. It allows them to connect, to create and to access information that was simply not possible just a generation ago. However, we must recognize a difficult reality: The modern online environment is not safe, especially for children. Children and young people face risks online that are different from those faced by adults. Children are more vulnerable when exposed to harmful content. Increasingly, they are drawn into interactions that are targeted to their vulnerabilities, which escalate into anxiety, depression and even suicide. That is why the safe social media act has been designed to prioritize the protection of children online. At the heart of this act is a clear principle: Platforms must take responsibility for protecting children, which applies across all regulated platforms. This includes social media and chatbot services. This duty is proactive, not reactive, and the act would establish clear and enforceable obligations by building safety measures directly into their design and operations, rather than responding only after harm occurs. This is a crucial shift from the current legislation. Child safety is not an afterthought. It is not optional. It must become part of the standard when operating in Canada. A key pillar of the duty to protect children is an obligation to prioritize age-appropriate design, including features that protect children online. These may include default safety settings for younger users, tools that limit exposure to harmful or sensitive content, and controls that allow parents or guardians to care for younger users. Rather than relying on one specific solution, the act proposes a digital safety commission to work with experts, industry and Canadians to develop appropriate measures through regulations. An important aspect of this is to recognize that children are not a single group. A 13-year-old, a 16-year-old and an 18-year-old do not interact with online services in the same way. Different age groups require different protections. This model is grounded in the realities of childhood development. To that end, measures should be implemented to ensure that children under the age of 16 cannot create or own accounts unless exemptions occur. This recognizes that some services, especially those built around open interaction and content sharing, may not be appropriate. At the same time, incentives for services that do innovate in safe environments must be enhanced. A key protection in the act is children’s exposure to pornographic content and ensuring that children under the age of 18 cannot access it. This type of content is explicit and is not appropriate for children. Parents should not have to worry about their children stumbling across it through social media or interacting with it via a harmful chatbot. Therefore, appropriate measures must be effective at reducing exposure, while also respecting user privacy. Hence, the bill emphasizes limiting the collection of personal information, ensuring that data collected for the purpose of age is used only for the purpose of age assurance, and ensuring that information is not retained. The bill acknowledges the need to protect children from harmful exposure, while also recognizing the importance of privacy and freedom of expression. I also want to talk about artificial intelligence, which is becoming ever more prominent. Children are spending more and more time interacting with chatbots. Chatbots can pose unique risks to children, who are acutely vulnerable to techniques that encourage an emotional connection and trust. We have heard of incidents of chatbots sending sexually explicit content to underage users and promoting suicide or anorexia. By introducing measures that create safer interactions between children and chatbots, this bill would allow children to experience technology safely. As such, across social media and AI chatbots, the bill would identify specific categories of harmful content that disproportionately affect more profoundly, and with lasting impacts, their well-being. This includes content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor, content that induces a child to harm themselves and content used to bully a child. Under this duty, regulated services would need to follow a specific protocol to make this type of content inaccessible on their platforms. In parallel, the act also addresses content that induces a child to harm themselves. For example, this could include a social media post that encourages a minor to injure themselves physically to cope with stress. For children who are still developing emotionally and psychologically, exposure to this indoctrination can be especially harmful. This is particularly important in the context of emerging technologies that interact directly with users, respond to sensitive situations and influence behaviour. Another critical area of concern is cyber-bullying. Social media platforms can contribute to the spread and escalation of cyber-bullying. The viral spread of hurtful posts can magnify the emotional impact on victims and can turn a single incident into widespread public humiliation. This type of content jeopardizes the ability of a child to fully express themselves online. To be clear, the definition used for bullying a child in the act targets content where there is an intention to threaten, intimidate or humiliate a child that could cause serious harm to their physical or mental health. The commission would provide guidelines on understanding the threshold of content that is reasonably perceived as threatening, intimidating or humiliating. For example, a group of 16-year-olds might create an Instagram account devoted to mocking a student, including posting photos or making fun of their appearance and abilities to exclude them from social events. Such content can spread through reposting. In this example, the child being bullied online could experience long-lasting humiliation, social isolation and depression. The platform would have an obligation to reduce users’ exposure to that content, breaking the cycle of engagement and exposure to harm. The safe social media act would establish a comprehensive approach to protect children online. It recognizes children’s vulnerability. It would set clear expectations and obligations for platforms. It would build a system that is proactive, adaptable and accountable. This bill would take meaningful strides to create a safer online world for young Canadians. Children are spending more of their lives on the Internet, and we accept that. This bill does not intend to prevent children from having access to valuable information or positive social experiences online. The goal is to make the online environment as safe as possible for them to explore. The duty we share, all of us in this House, is to protect children. The act would do just that.”

• Echo ×6

  A repeated line

  “Content that induces a child to harm themselves.”

  Said 6 times by 6 members since October 28.

  Every time it was said →

In response to a question from Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault

“Other countries want to invest in Canada. We have over 20 trade deals and lead the world in foreign investment. This is because we follow the law, make fair deals, and can be trusted.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague brings up a very important fact. Canada is sought-after around the world. We have negotiated over 20 trade agreements, and we are the top foreign direct investment jurisdiction in the world because of those initiatives and because Canada is seen as a trusted partner. Other countries want to deal with those that abide by the rule of law and that ensure social justice as well as security in trade agreements. I am very excited about where we are heading.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 47 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Dan Albas

“This bill says its purpose is to help major projects get approved faster to strengthen our economy and security. It also says it will protect the environment and respect Indigenous rights.”

“Mr. Speaker, I have the bill before me, and I am going to read something within it verbatim: The purpose of this Act is to enhance Canada’s prosperity, national security, economic security, national defence and national autonomy by ensuring that projects that are in the national interest and projects of an eligible type within a region of national interest are advanced through an accelerated process that enhances regulatory certainty and investor confidence, while protecting the environment and respecting the rights of Indigenous peoples. That is item 4 on page 71.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 47 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Marcus Powlowski

“I want the House to pass this bill. It will help grow our trade, protect our independence, and make Canada's economy stronger.”

“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question, and I also appreciate what most Canadians are appreciating, which is the fact that we are looking for results, we are looking at outcomes, we are working closely together with other nations, we are diversifying our trade, we are broadening our reach and we are protecting our sovereignty by becoming more resilient. These economic efforts are for the benefit of our future in Canada. I am very encouraged that all of us recognize how important the bill is to achieving those results.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 46 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →
• Vague
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Clarity 44 of 100

  Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

  See full analysis →

“I support this bill. It cuts red tape for our transportation and trade sectors so we can build major projects faster. It sets a one-year limit for project reviews and stops businesses from having to file the same paperwork with multiple government offices, while still protecting the environment and Indigenous rights.”

“Mr. Speaker, Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act, would put forward important legislative changes that build on our government’s efforts to protect Canada’s economic future by reducing the regulatory burden faced by the Canadian transportation sector. Last year, the House passed the Building Canada Act, which focused on accelerating the development of projects of national interest and removing barriers to international trade and labour mobility. Today, I am pleased to say that we have worked diligently in the past months on new projects and streamlining processes. For much of our history, Canadians were able to count on favourable trade connections and conditions, including a stable relationship with the United States. That has shifted. The decades-long economic integration is over. Tariffs are being treated as leverage and supply chains as vulnerabilities. In a rapidly changing world, Canada’s new government is focused on what it can control. We are building strength at home and diversifying our partnerships abroad. We are on track. Transportation is the vital link. We cannot diversify trade, build the strongest economy in the G7 and strengthen Canada’s competitiveness without a transportation system that works. Canada’s trade corridors connect Canadian business to markets and supply chains both at home and around the world. We heard directly from Canadians about what is needed to build stronger, more efficient and more resilient supply chains. As such, we are taking action to reduce red tape, strengthen supply chains, accelerate infrastructure development and attract investment to grow Canada’s economy and create new jobs. For too long, red tape and underinvestment hindered innovation and productivity in Canadian companies. We often heard that we are not modern, that we are too bureaucratic, that we have not invested enough in our infrastructure and that other countries were finding us to be unreliable. These issues have to be addressed. That is why we are providing regulatory certainty to modernize the rules that govern how we build and invest to compete, while protecting the health and security of Canadians and the environment and respecting indigenous rights. To support our commitment to lower costs and build a stronger economy, this government launched a red tape review in July 2025. Federal departments and agencies identified approximately 500 actions to reduce regulatory red tape. This bill would begin the implementation of some of these forward-looking actions, showing how the government will deliver on its commitment to address barriers that limit trade and restrict competition. Canada is and needs to be seen as a reliable and beneficial place to invest and do business. Inefficiencies in our trade processes and supply chains are costly and hurt our reputation as a reliable trading partner. To maximize the full value of our budget 2025 investments, we must address long-standing constraints in the system that limit investment and productivity. This will support a more modern, responsive transportation system that can handle economic pressures, improve performance and unlock new capacity across our supply chains. A critical piece of the bill addresses coordinated reviews and securing timely approvals. Delays deter investment in our nation-building projects. The bill includes measures to reduce red tape and regulatory burden through a new transportation project office. This would complement efforts being led by the Major Projects Office and the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada. We need to expedite permits. Our government’s commitment of one project, one review, within one year of receiving all necessary information from a proponent, is key. These changes would enable industry to advance large-scale projects more efficiently and with greater certainty, and would help attract investment. The transportation project office would work to reduce bottlenecks, improve coordination and offer a one-window approach for proponents. All the while, this improved approach would maintain existing safeguards to ensure the integrity of those project reviews. The objective is to unlock greater efficiency, not more risk. Equally important is our government’s commitment to having indigenous partnerships that shape how projects are developed and carried out. We also remain committed to upholding those indigenous rights, including rights stemming from section 35 of the Constitution, to work with indigenous peoples during the implementation phase. The bill would also give Canada tools to rapidly align with international standards and strengthen how we collect, use and protect our industry data to better protect critical Canadian assets. Following the “tell us once” principle, government efforts on trade digitization would make it simple for Canadian business to submit the information. I want to specifically highlight this last point. Today, industries fulfilling regulatory requirements are routinely required to submit the same or similar data to multiple departments in various formats and on different timelines. This imposes real costs and administrative burdens on businesses. Canadian businesses expect clear communication, faster turnaround times and the ability to track the status of their requests. By reducing duplication and streamlining reporting, our trade digitization initiative, once implemented, would lower costs, save time and let businesses focus on what they want: growth and innovation. For example, in the marine sector, vessels arriving at Canadian ports must file 12 distinct forms with five different federal departments and agencies, often in duplicate. Approximately 90% of Canada’s trade with non-U.S. countries is carried by marine vessels. Making it easier to file the data once and have it shared securely across departments would meaningfully cut red tape as we diversify trade. The bill would also align with trusted international standards, giving industry the certainty it needs to plan and invest with confidence, especially as Canada seeks to grow its trade. When rules and regulations move at the same pace as international partners, Canadian innovation and productivity are unleashed, and Canadian companies can compete on a level playing field with their international competitors. I am looking forward to the discussion and the debate on this consequential bill.”

• Echo ×4

  A repeated line

  “The government is focused on what it can control.”

  Said 4 times by 4 members since May 26.

  Every time it was said →

In response to a question from Elizabeth May

“The world still needs our energy resources, and Canada is a trusted partner to provide them. We must look at new forms of energy for the future, but we can develop our resources and protect the environment at the same time.”

“Madam Speaker, I appreciate the fact that we are asking questions. We should always ask questions, and the government should be held accountable to the investments it is making for the future benefit of Canadians. I will argue, though, that demand does exist. The prosperity and legacy of that demand over a longer period of time of time may dwindle, which is all the more reason we have to look at alternative forms of energy, but Canada has what the world wants. We have heard that many times. The world needs Canada to be at the table to provide some of the resources and trust. Canada is a trusted partner in these endeavours. We are trusted to provide environmental protection as we proceed. We can continue doing both, and we will.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →
• Echo ×4

  A repeated line

  “Canada has what the world wants.”

  Said 4 times by 4 members since June 18.

  Every time it was said →

In response to a question from Jeremy Patzer

“Canada can produce oil and gas while also developing clean energy. We have the resources, and the world wants them. Our country's success depends on selling fuel, energy, and minerals, and we will keep doing that while building clean alternatives.”

“Madam Speaker, the question is whether we can do both. Can we walk and chew gum? We need to do both. The fact is that we need to provide clean alternatives within the system as we proceed. There is a demand. We have the resources. Canada’s prosperity is dependent upon its ability to provide some of our critical minerals, including fuel and energy from the tar sands. We are already a huge producer of energy around the world. We will continue to be, and we will continue to provide alternates, including clean energy alternatives.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Anna Roberts

“High diesel prices hurt farmers, truckers, and families, but Canada cannot control global oil markets or world events. Our government gave immediate help by pausing the fuel tax, and we are fixing pipelines and transport systems to move fuel better. Building new refineries takes years and will not lower prices today, so we need to focus on both quick tax relief and long-term energy projects.”

“Madam Speaker, the recent surge in diesel prices has indeed created real challenges for Canadians. Farmers bringing in this year’s harvest are facing higher costs. Trucking companies moving goods across the country are facing higher costs. Businesses that rely on diesel power and equipment are also facing higher costs. When transportation costs rise, Canadians often see those costs reflected in the prices they pay for food and everyday goods. Diesel prices matter to Canadians. They affect household budgets, businesses, farmers and industries across the country. Understanding what is driving those prices is essential if we want to identify solutions that can make a meaningful difference. That is because we oftentimes misunderstand the problem, and if we do, we end up chasing the wrong solutions. One of the challenges in this debate is that many different factors affect the price of diesel. Some of those factors are within Canada’s influence and others are not. A responsible energy policy begins by understanding the difference. Let us begin with what Canadians can influence. Governments can act to provide relief when Canadians are facing higher costs. That is exactly what the government did. Earlier this year, the Government of Canada temporarily suspended the federal fuel excise tax on diesel and gasoline. When global pressures persisted, the government extended that relief. That support is expected to provide billions of dollars in relief to Canadians. Members opposite may argue that the relief should go further, and that is a legitimate debate. One of the central proposals in today’s motion is tax relief on diesel. On that point, the government has already acted, but the discussion cannot stop there. That is why the government is collaborating with industry, provinces and territories to identify opportunities for Canada to strengthen the resilience of its fuel system, including for transportation networks, storage capacity and other types of infrastructure. By working in lockstep with provinces and territories, we can create the conditions to attract investment in the critical energy systems and infrastructure Canadians rely upon every day. Fuel security is not determined solely by how much fuel is produced. It also depends on whether that fuel can reach the communities, farms and businesses that depend upon it. That requires ensuring that pipelines, rail, storage, and strong distribution networks are always in place to ensure access to the energy that Canadians need. This motion recognizes that fuel security is about more than refining capacity alone. The debate is about how best to strengthen those systems and how quickly Canadians can expect to see results. Now let us consider what Canada cannot control. Canada does not set the global price of crude oil. Canada does not determine global refinery margins. Canada does not control international diesel shortages. Canada does not control wars and geopolitical instability, nor disruptions affecting energy markets around the world. In fact, G7 leaders met virtually on Friday because these challenges are affecting countries around the world, not just Canada, and they agreed to coordinate the release of strategic fuel reserves and diesel in response to pressures affecting global fuel markets. That is a reminder that many of the forces affecting diesel prices extend well beyond the reach of any single government. All of those events can affect the price that Canadians pay. Of course, recognizing that reality is not an excuse. It is simply an acknowledgement of the facts. The fact is that no federal government, regardless of political stripe, can legislate away global energy price volatility. No government can pass a motion in the House of Commons and eliminate geopolitical risk, and no government can guarantee that international supply disruptions will never occur again. What governments can do is strengthen resilience, reduce vulnerabilities and help Canadians weather disruptions when they occur. That is exactly what the government is focused on doing. One aspect of today’s motion deserves particular attention. The motion proposes expanding diesel production and building additional fuel infrastructure, including refining capacity, transport networks, and storage. I agree. The government agrees that adequate refining capacity remains important to Canada’s long-term energy security. However, it is important to note that Canada already produces more diesel than it consumes. The challenge is not simply how much fuel Canada produces but also ensuring that fuel can move relatively easily and reliably through the systems Canadians depend upon. If market demand supports additional refining capacity, our government should carefully consider proposals to expand its production, but Canadians also deserve a realistic discussion about what refining capacity can and cannot accomplish. A new refinery cannot be planned, financed, approved and constructed in a matter of months. Projects of that scale take years. Even under optimistic assumptions, they cannot address the affordability challenges Canadians are facing right now. That does not make them unimportant. It simply means they solve a different problem. They are not primarily about lowering diesel prices this month. They are about making Canada more resilient in the future. Diesel prices are ultimately linked to North American and global fuel markets, so simply adding refining capacity in Canada would not necessarily translate into significantly lower prices for Canadian consumers. A responsible energy strategy requires both immediate action and long-term planning, not one or the other, and that is exactly the approach the government is taking. First, the government provided relief that Canadians can feel today. Second, it is strengthening the system that will help Canada respond to future disruptions tomorrow. That broader work is already under way. Global instability and associated volatility in diesel prices reinforces the importance of strengthening resilience of our energy systems. Canada already produces significant amounts of energy, but we should also be looking for ways to move that energy more efficiently across the country. That is why the government has focused on strengthening transportation networks and improving market reliance. Recent approvals, including the Wolf Midstream project, the Sunrise expansion project and the Taylor to Gordondale project, will strengthen the infrastructure that moves energy and fuels where Canadians need them most. The Pacific link is another recent example of that work. The Government of Canada recently designated the project as one of national interests under the Building Canada Act. It has the potential to strengthen Canada’s energy security and diversify our export opportunities. A resilient country is a better-prepared country. A better-prepared country with energy security is about more than any single project and about more than any single type of fuel. Canada’s energy security depends on having reliable conventional fuels, strong transportation networks, adequate storage and, increasingly, abundant clean fuels and clean energy. These are not competing objectives; they strengthen one another. Reliable diesel remains essential for farmers, truckers, construction workers, mining operations and countless businesses across the country, but Canada’s energy security is also strengthened when we produce more reliable alternatives to diesel, such as more clean fuels such as renewable diesel and biodiesel. More supply makes energy systems more resilient, and more options make it more reliable. That is why the Government of Canada has also supported the growth of Canada’s biofuel sector. The goal is to strengthen Canada’s domestic production of renewable alternatives to protect Canadians, to build energy security and to add fuel to the market. They complement conventional fuels rather than replace them. More fuel supply strengthens market resilience and reduces pressure on prices. Energy security is strengthened when Canada produces more energy of all kinds. That means more conventional security, more conventional energy, more clean fuels, more clean energy and more resilience. That is how any country can be prepared for uncertainty. Canadians need relief today. They also need confidence in the future. That means taking action where governments can make a difference and strengthening Canada’s energy security over the long term. Our government is doing both. That is the approach Canadians deserve and the approach we will continue to pursue.”

In response to a question from Elizabeth May

“When I was in Ontario's government, we moved away from coal power. It cost a lot, but it cut emissions and helped our economy in the long run. I agree we need to do more on climate change, and our government wants to build green energy too.”

“Mr. Speaker, during the time I was there, provincially we did quite a bit to decarbonize Ontario’s reliance on coal. We became one of the lowest-emitting provinces as a result of those measures. We tried to do everything we could to modernize that system, which was expensive but long-term and has great benefits to the overall costs and to the climate. We were trying to make our green energy process an economic process with greater long-term benefits. I value the member’s question. I value her desire to have us do more in that regard, and I know that the Prime Minister also has a great desire for climate initiatives to harness green energy alongside the things we are doing as an energy superpower.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 45 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from William Stevenson

“European countries tax fuel too, and gas is much more expensive there than in Canada. Those countries also lead the world in using wind, solar, and other clean energy.”

“Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes reference to excise taxes in other parts of the world. Most European countries, which is where I was, actually do have excise taxes on their fuel. In fact, fuel was much more expensive than it is here at home in Canada. More importantly than that, the countries I was in were also harnessing renewable energy. They are at the forefront of some of the most critical measures to foster wind power and solar power. They are relying so much more on other energy sources. To answer the member’s question, they in fact have very high excise taxes on their fuel.”

“I want the House to pass this bill. It pauses the federal fuel tax until 2027 to lower gas prices and help Canadians with the high cost of living.”

“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your allowing me to speak to Bill C-38, the Canadian fuel affordability act. While Canada is starting from a position of strength, the global economy is becoming increasingly uncertain. New and unjustified tariffs, trade tensions, and conflicts in the Middle East and Europe are driving up costs for households and businesses and are creating economic uncertainty here at home for all Canadians. Our government recognizes this and is taking action to help Canadians manage rising costs and navigate these global economic uncertainties. Earlier this year, we temporarily suspended the federal fuel excise tax, saving Canadians and Canadian businesses 10¢ per litre on gasoline and 11¢ per litre on leaded aviation fuel. The impact was immediate, with gasoline prices declining by 11¢ per litre on the first day of implementation. That was real relief for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Building on our decision earlier this month, the Minister of Finance and National Revenue announced our intention to extend that temporary suspension until January 31, 2027, and apply 50% of the regular excise tax rate from February 1 through March 31, 2027. That means that Canadians in my riding of Mississauga—Lakeshore on the shores of the great Lake Ontario would benefit with extended relief and continued cost reduction per litre for gasoline and diesel. Let me be clear: This measure would help lower costs for Canadians, including truckers and businesses in the food and agriculture, housing, construction and delivery sectors. This is another example of our government’s delivering timely and meaningful relief when Canadians need it most. By reducing pressure on gasoline and diesel prices, we would be helping Canadians manage today’s challenges, while laying the foundation for longer-term growth and prosperity as we build on the strongest economy in the G7. This is just one part of a broader effort to lower costs for Canadians. It is one of the first measures our government took after assuming office. Members opposite will recall that one of the first things the Prime Minister did upon assuming office was to cancel the consumer fuel charge, helping Canadians to save money at the pump in most provinces and territories. Our government also removed the requirement for provinces and territories to have a consumer-facing carbon price as of April 1, 2025. At the same time, our government recognizes that affordability challenges extend well beyond the cost of fuel, and that is why we have taken additional steps to put money, and more money, back into Canadians’ pockets. For example, we introduced the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit. By building on the former goods and services tax credit, we are increasing the amount provided to low- and modest-income Canadians by 25% for the first five years, as of July, 2026. In addition to that, we provided a one-time payment in June, equivalent to 50% of increases in 2025-26, with an annual value of the GST credit. Our government is responding to global challenges with a responsible and pragmatic fiscal approach. It is important to note that while we may not control every global event, with respect to the ones that are impacting prices, I want to assure my hon. colleagues and all Canadians that our government is doing what is necessary to take and make a deal that helps those impacts. By lowering costs for Canadians from coast to coast to coast, the government is providing supports to their affordability challenge while creating an economy where Canadians have more control in building their own future. Above all, these government measures will empower Canadians to get ahead and minimize the impacts on their cost of living. Canadians naturally want to keep more of the money they earn. They want greater opportunities to support their families, invest in their communities and build their future with confidence. Our country is at a crossroads. Many people around the world choose Canada. New Canadians are seeking freedom and opportunity. Throughout history, Canadians have proven themselves to be resilient, to overcome adversity, and over the years, they have grown more prosperous. They will continue to build. We will persevere, more united than ever, to protect our sovereignty and strengthen its resolve. Standing together, we are navigating this crossroads. I returned recently from overseas, and I had witnessed many around the world celebrating Canada’s standing. The Prime Minister is sought after for his leadership and experience, just as much as Canada is sought after for its critical minerals and untapped potential. Canada is valued as a trusted partner that abides by the rule of law and social justice. As chair of the defence committee, I can attest that boosting Canada’s defence industrial strategy is renewing our confidence while stimulating our economy. More than that, it bolsters our national pride. Events recently, such as the major attraction at the investment summit, speak volumes. They will enable major projects and build our economy, which sustains and supports the social programs Canadians rely on and expect. Just as the EU and so many around the world welcome Canada, we welcome every effort to broaden our reach and foster relations to reduce geopolitical threats that have impacted price challenges here at home. This bill would help support Canadians, and I hope my colleagues will support this measure for the greater benefit of all Canadians.”

• Echo ×29

  A repeated line

  “We introduced the Canada groceries and essentials benefit.”

  Said 29 times by 19 members since April 23.

  Every time it was said →