Eric Lefebvre

In response to a question from Gord Johns

“Conservatives want to lower taxes. We need to cut rules in Ottawa, make the government smaller, and leave more money with Canadians. A Conservative government will do that.”

“Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party is the party that wants to lower taxes. We need to cut red tape in Ottawa, reduce the size of government and put money back in the pockets of all Canadians. That is what the next Conservative government will do.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 26 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 Claude DeBellefeuille

“The member must have missed my speech. I did talk about seniors who worked for decades and paid taxes all their lives.”

“Madam Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague, I think she must have been absent during my speech, in which I spoke about our seniors who worked for 30, 40 or 50 years and paid taxes all their lives. That is exactly what I said in the speech I delivered a few minutes ago.”

• 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 Jean-Yves Duclos

“I want to thank the volunteers in my riding who raise money to feed people. They have to do this because the government is not helping them. The real goal must be making life affordable so people can make ends meet.”

“Madam Speaker, once again, I want to thank the people and volunteers getting involved in our communities. In my riding, a group of men founded Clan Destins, which supports the Boîtes à lunch program. These individuals have dedicated themselves to the cause and are raising funds because the government is currently unable to support them. I thank them for that. What we need right now is for people to be able to make ends meet. That is the ultimate goal.”

“I want the House to pass my motion telling the Prime Minister to testify at the finance committee. Government spending is driving up debt and the cost of living. More people in my riding are using food banks, including workers and seniors. The Prime Minister must explain how he plans to cut deficits, debt interest, and taxes.”

“moved: That, given that, (i) the cost of government is driving up the cost of living, (ii) the Parliamentary Budget Officer reports that this government’s fastest-growing cost is interest on the national debt which has more than doubled since 2021, (iii) this Liberal government now spends more on debt interest than the Canada Health Transfer, (iv) an average family of four will pay nearly $6,000 in federal taxes toward interest on the national debt this year, based on numbers from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, (v) the Prime Minister promised that he would reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio and deficit-to-GDP ratio, the House call on the Prime Minister to appear as a witness before the Standing Committee on Finance to testify on saving Canadians money by cutting deficit spending, debt interest and taxes. He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills North. I rise today to speak to my opposition day motion. The motion calls on the Prime Minister to appear before the Standing Committee on Finance to explain how his government plans to cut deficit spending, debt interest and the tax burden on Canadians. Behind the billions of dollars we discuss here in Ottawa lies a reality we must never lose sight of: that of hard-working families, retirees counting every dollar, entrepreneurs trying to keep their businesses afloat and young people dreaming of owning a home. In my riding of Richmond—Arthabaska—des‑Sources, I meet people who get up early, work long hours and do everything they can to provide a good life for their families. These are farmers, manufacturing workers, business owners, young families and seniors who have contributed to our society throughout their lives. These people are not asking for the moon. They want to be able to cover the cost of groceries, the mortgage, home heating and other bills without constantly worrying about their finances. Above all, they want to know that the tax dollars they hand over to the federal government are being used responsibly. Public finances are not merely a matter of figures. They have a very real impact on the lives of Canadians. On October 20, the Parliamentary Budget Officer published her latest economic and fiscal outlook, and those figures should give us all pause for thought. According to this report, Canada’s real economic growth is expected to reach just 0.9% in 2026 and 1.5% in 2027. These are modest growth rates for a country blessed with such abundant natural resources, such talented people and such significant economic potential. For Conservatives and for me, that is simply not good enough. Surely, we can be more ambitious. Meanwhile, federal deficits are projected to total more than $333 billion over the next five years. That is not all. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the federal deficit is expected to reach $63 billion this year, before rising to $70 billion in 2027-28. Even in 2030-31, the government is projected to run a deficit of nearly $68 billion. In other words, these forecasts do not point to a return to a balanced budget at any point during the period under review. I want to call attention to another very alarming item in the report. Public debt charges now make up the fastest-growing category of federal expenditures. In 2021‑22, they amounted to $24.5 billion. This year, they are expected to reach $60 billion. By 2030-31, the cost of debt charges alone could reach $83 billion. These funds are not going to be used to build hospitals, hire nurses, improve our roads and highways or give Canadians a break on their grocery bills. They will be used to meet financial obligations racked up the government. Of course, all governments have to be able to borrow. Debt can be useful for funding necessary and productive investments. However, the government has to be able to show that the borrowed funds will produce tangible results and that public finances will remain manageable. This is exactly why we are requesting today that the Prime Minister come and explain himself before the finance committee. We are seeing no results on the ground. In fact, daily life is growing worse for our people. I would now like to focus this debate on a reality that I am very familiar with, the reality of Richmond—Arthabaska—des-Sources. In my region, we are fortunate to have innovative entrepreneurs, passionate farmers, manufacturers and community organizations that do outstanding work. However, behind this economic vitality, there are also people facing significant financial hardship. The recent statistics on food assistance are particularly telling. According to Moisson Mauricie—Centre-du-Québec’s 2026 hunger report, the network of 61 member organizations are now responding to over 137,000 requests for food assistance every month. That is an increase of 23% in just one year and an increase of 60% in five years. I repeat: Requests for food assistance have increased by 60% in five years. What is even more worrisome is that nearly 13% of the households assisted by this network have employment income. They have an income, but they are still struggling to make ends meet. That means that people are working, getting paid and yet still have to ask for help to put food on the table. That is what is happening. The report also indicates that over 17% of the households that receive assistance rely mainly on an old age pension or retirement pension. Let us think about these seniors who worked for 30, 40 or 50 years. These are people who paid their taxes, raised their children and families and contributed to the development of our community. Today, some of them have to turn to food banks to make ends meet. That is what is happening right now. This situation deserves our full attention. I want to take this opportunity to thank the volunteers and community organizations in our regions that meet these needs every day. Their work is essential. However, we should be asking ourselves why so many Canadians need their services. Our collective goal should be to allow people to live with dignity from their work and their retirement income. In a country as rich as ours, both in terms of resources and opportunities, we need to find a way to make the essentials more affordable. That means a more productive economy, investments that create wealth and the sound management of public finances. We need to put an end to the Liberal culture of reckless spending. This Liberal culture is all about reckless spending. I am also thinking about the farmers in my riding. In Richmond—Arthabaska—des-Sources, agriculture plays a significant role in our economy and our regional identity. Our producers have to contend with the cost of fuel, machinery, equipment, fertilizers and transportation. When a farmer’s expenses rise, they cannot always incorporate those costs into the selling price of their products. They often have to absorb the increase at the expense of their profitability. When production and transportation costs rise throughout the food chain, this inevitably affects the price paid at the grocery store. That is why economic decisions made here in Ottawa have to take into account the impact on businesses and families in our regions. The same goes for our manufacturing companies. When a company needs to invest more to modernize, hire workers, or break into new markets, it needs a predictable economic environment. As a former entrepreneur, I know that what people need is predictability. Businesses need to have confidence in the future. They need a government capable of distinguishing between investments that truly foster growth and spending that simply burdens public finances. Prosperity cannot be decreed. It is built through hard work, innovation, investment, and entrepreneurship. The Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report also raises a fundamental question about the government’s financial commitments. The Prime Minister promised to reduce the deficit-to-GDP ratio. However, according to projections published on October 20, that target is unlikely to be consistently met. The Prime Minister has to be able to defend his choices to the representatives of the people of Canada. I want to close by calling to mind once again the people of my riding. A family in Victoriaville will have to make choices when revising its budget, because the cost of essentials continues to rise. The Prime Minister also has to make choices. We expect him to appear before the Standing Committee on Finance to answer our questions and those of concerned Canadians.”

• Echo ×4

  A repeated line

  “The cost of government has driven up the cost of living.”

  Said 4 times by 3 members since April 27.

  Every time it was said →

“The government is spending too much money. We face over $330 billion in deficits over five years, and debt interest will top $60 billion next year. That money should help struggling families instead. I want the government to bring its spending under control.”

“Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report is damning for the Liberal government. A deficit of more than $330 billion is projected over five years. Meanwhile, interest on the debt will be over $60 billion next year. That is money that will never be used to help Quebec and Canadian families who are struggling to make ends meet. The Liberals are spending recklessly, but it is Canadians who are paying the price. When will the government get its spending under control and stop using our children’s and grandchildren’s credit cards?”

“Our economy is not strong. Food bank use is way up in Quebec and in my riding. Will the government cut the tax on diesel so groceries cost less?”

“Madam Speaker, how can the minister talk about a strong economy when food banks in Quebec are serving more than three million people every month? That is a 37% increase. In my riding, the organization Sécurité alimentaire de Victoriaville is helping 2,224 adults and 1,284 children. In fact, 35% of its clients are children. At the Centre d’action bénévole de Windsor et région, the needs have grown by 50% since the Liberals took office. Will the Liberals eliminate the federal tax on diesel so that groceries are affordable again?”

In response to a question from Jason Groleau

“I want the government to permanently remove the tax on gasoline. People are struggling to afford life right now. I am surprised the Bloc Québécois wants to bring this tax back.”

“Mr. Speaker, I feel a little awkward because it is true that I have talked a lot about the Bloc Québécois this evening. We are really here to talk about Bill C-38, concerning the excise tax on gasoline. I must admit, however, that I was a bit taken aback to hear the Bloc Québécois say today that it is asking the government to reinstate the excise tax on gasoline even though Canadians and Quebeckers keep talking to us about the affordability crisis every single weekend. Yes, on this side of the House, we are asking that this tax be permanently removed. I see that as one way to ease the affordability crisis this country is going through.”

• 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 Jean-Denis Garon

“Farmers are paying twice as much for fuel this year as they did last year. They do not make enough money to cover that cost. We need to pass this bill to lower fuel taxes.”

“Mr. Speaker, I must also admit that I hold my colleague from Mirabel in very high regard. What is more, he is looking out for me today. He told me not to eat my whole dessert and to watch my sugar intake. We look out for one another here, and these are moments that people back home do not get to see. In response to my colleague, I would say this: For the farmer who was paying $1,000 last year and is paying $2,000 this year, what matters is not where the five cents from the tax is going. What matters to that farmer is that this is costing him twice as much out of his own pocket and he does not have enough income to keep going. That is what worries him.”

• 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 →
• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 42 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Louis Villeneuve

“We all want to leave a better country for our children and grandchildren. We should permanently get rid of this fuel tax instead of pausing it. That gives people certainty. The government can make up the lost money by shrinking its own size.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member for Brome—Missisquoi is a colleague for whom I have great respect. He is fortunate to still have his father around and to be a grandparent. As for me, I will become a grandfather in two weeks. I will get the greatest gift that life can give me in a couple of weeks. We all think about our children and grandchildren. I am certain that all members here, on both sides of the House, are thinking about their children and grandchildren. Our shared goal is to leave a better country for future generations. I am sure that we all share that vision. Where do our visions differ? I spoke earlier about predictability. What we on the Conservative side are saying is that we need to give our constituents some predictability by permanently eliminating this tax. There are many ways to make up the revenue, such as by reducing the size of government.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 33 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“Life costs too much right now, and fuel taxes make groceries and everything else more expensive. I support pausing the fuel tax, but the government's plan does not go far enough. I want the government to pause all federal gas and diesel taxes until at least July 1, 2027, and then eliminate them for good.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Beauce for the excellent speech he just gave and join in congratulating him on his appointment to the committee. I rise today to speak to Bill C-38 at a time when our country is experiencing an affordability crisis that is hitting every Canadian family hard. Across the country, especially in the regions of Quebec, people are forced to cope with an increasingly difficult reality as the cost of living rises, bills pile up and families’ purchasing power is stretched to the limit. As everyone knows, buying groceries is more expensive. Getting to work is more expensive. Transporting goods is more expensive. For our farmers, producing the food that we put on our tables is an escalating financial challenge. It is in this context that we must examine the measures proposed in Bill C‑38 and ask ourselves a fundamental question: Will these measures provide Canadians with sufficient, lasting relief? That is the question. The Liberal government has finally decided to extend the suspension of the federal excise tax on fuel and postpone its reinstatement until early next year, in 2027. This relief is, of course, welcome news for car owners, workers and businesses. However, one fact should be kept in mind: This decision comes after months of pressure from Conservatives calling on the government to reduce the tax burden on gasoline and diesel. For months, we urged the Liberals to give Canadians some relief. We repeatedly called for the suspension of this tax to be extended at least until Canada Day, July 1, 2027. However, time and again, the Liberals voted against our proposal. Today, the Minister of Finance announced that the government will extend a measure that it had said itself would be temporary. I find it interesting to hear the Bloc Québécois pleading with the Liberal government to reinstate the gas tax today. The Bloc is asking when the government will reinstate the gas tax. I do not know whether the Bloc Québécois members are living in the same province as I am. This weekend, Quebeckers were telling me that they are struggling to make ends meet, that things are not working and that they need some breathing room. One way to give them that breathing room is to eliminate this gas tax. However, the Bloc Québécois is currently pleading with the government to keep it in place. We are saying that Canadians need more relief. They need practical measures that will help them regain real purchasing power. It is important to understand that gas and diesel prices do not just affect car owners. When we talk about fuel prices, we are also talking about food prices, the cost of materials, transportation costs and, ultimately, the cost of almost every product that Canadians need and buy on a daily basis. Fuel is present in almost every stage of our economy. Let us take a simple example: a can of vegetables at the grocery store. Before it reaches the shelves, the vegetables will be grown, harvested, packaged, transported and distributed. The farmers use tractors, combine harvesters and many other machines that run on diesel. The transporters then use trucks to move crops to distribution centres and businesses. Each of these stages involves energy costs. When the price of diesel increases, the cost of production and transportation increases. That pressure ultimately affects the price that consumers pay. In other words, Canadians are not just paying the high fuel prices at the pump; they are also suffering the consequences at the grocery store checkout. This happens every week. Families have to watch every dollar of their budget. What are they going to do? I would like to draw the House’s attention to the realities facing Quebec farmers. A few weeks ago, I spoke here about Nick Majeau, a farmer from Quebec. His story is a perfect example of the challenges that agricultural producers face. During harvest season, he has to spend $2,000 a day on diesel to power his farm equipment. That is twice as much as it cost him the previous year. Imagine what that means for this farming business. I spoke with other farmers in the Centre-du-Québec region of my riding. They told me that for some farmers, the costs are much higher than in Mr. Majeau’s case. For some, the costs are three times what they used to be. This money is not being spent to expand the business, hire more workers, or invest in equipment. It has to be spent just to continue production. As my hon. colleague, the member for Beauce, said earlier, farmers cannot opt out of farming next week just because the price of diesel has gone up. They cannot say they are going to take a week off until the price goes back down. That is not how it works. They have to go out to the fields and cannot just decide to leave their tractors in the garage. Unlike other businesses, they cannot always pass on all of these costs to their customers right away. They have to absorb the increase and cover the expenses to stay competitive. These men and women work tirelessly to feed our communities and contribute to the economic strength of our regions, our food sovereignty and Quebec’s prosperity. I am talking about our farmers. I see that my Bloc Québécois colleague does not like hearing me talk about this, but when I hear the Bloc Québécois calling for the tax to be reinstated as quickly as possible, my thoughts turn to our rural communities and the farmers who fight every morning to make a living. Morning, noon and night, agriculture is on our plates. Without these men and women who get up every morning to work their fields, we would not enjoy the harvests that feed us day in and day out. Now they are getting some breathing room. We are calling on the government to make that relief permanent. When I hear the Bloc Québécois calling for the excise tax be reinstated, it leaves me shaking my head. There are also parents who must choose between filling up their gas tank and buying groceries. I am not exaggerating. They have a limited amount of money and have to decide whether to fill up the tank or put in just 20 dollars’ worth so they can still afford groceries. That is the reality for many right now. There are seniors living on fixed incomes who are seeing the cost of essentials continue to rise. The government now recognizes that cutting fuel taxes can help ease costs in several sectors of the economy. In its announcement, it acknowledged the benefits of tax relief for truckers, farmers and people working in the construction, housing and delivery sectors. That alone is an important acknowledgement, but it also raises an important question: If the government now recognizes that cutting the fuel tax helps Canadians, why not extend it even further? Why end this measure so soon when families continue to struggle with the rising cost of living? Why not offer farmers more predictability? Farmers run businesses. They are businessmen and businesswomen. What businesses need most is predictability, which the government is not giving them at this point. That is why we, the Conservatives, are asking the government to do more. We are calling on the government to suspend all federal taxes on gasoline and diesel at least until July 1, 2027. I look forward to answering my colleagues’ questions because this issue really matters to me. Ordinary people are going through tough times. Folks are struggling, and this is one way to give them a bit of breathing room. I am convinced that permanently eliminating the gas tax would give Canadian families a chance.”

“The Bloc Québécois is asking the government to raise taxes on Canadians again. The debate today shows the clear difference between our parties. Even the Liberal member looks uncomfortable with these questions because he also wants Canadians to have a good life.”

“Mr. Speaker, we are currently witnessing a historic moment. The Bloc Québécois is once again speaking out to demand that the Liberal government impose even more taxes on Quebeckers and Canadians. I would encourage people to listen to what was said in the past 10 minutes. We really see the difference between the Bloc Québécois, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party. I understand why my hon. colleague, for whom I have a great deal of respect, is uncomfortable with these questions, because he, too, wants to make sure that Canadians have a good quality of life.”

• Echo ×5

  A repeated line

  “For whom I have a great deal of respect.”

  Said 5 times by 4 members since May 25.

  Every time it was said →

“Gas, groceries, and the cost of living are too high. The Bloc Québécois wants to bring back fuel taxes, but I want the government to make the fuel tax cut permanent.”

“Mr. Speaker, something just happened that really highlights the difference between the Bloc Québécois and the Conservative Party. The Bloc Québécois is asking questions as though it wants Quebeckers and Canadians to pay more taxes. It is asking the government to bring taxes back. While we are in the midst of an affordability crisis with regard to gas, groceries and the rising cost of living, the Bloc Québécois wants the government to raise taxes. What I am asking the government to do, to help Quebeckers and Canadians cope with the cost of living and to bring down the cost of living, is to make the tax cut permanent.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →
• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 29 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →