Kelly McCauley

“The Prime Minister said our debt would go down. But the budget officer says it will grow from $1.5 trillion to $2.3 trillion in four years. I want the Prime Minister to explain that.”

“Mr. Speaker, in September 2025, the Prime Minister stood in the House and stated, “We are going to have a declining level of debt”, yet the Parliamentary Budget Officer is projecting debt to climb from $1.5 trillion to $2.3 trillion over the next four years. Would the Prime Minister like to explain how debt going from $1.5 trillion to $2.3 trillion is, in his own words, a declining level of debt, or is he using the same math that he used to conclude that affordability is the best it has been in a decade?”

In response to a question from James Bezan

“The government says it is meeting its defence spending goals, but it is counting things like scientific studies and counting fish as defence spending. It should focus on buying the weapons and equipment our military actually needs.”

“Madam Speaker, yes, there were a lot of concerns expressed by the PBO with respect to transparency, the government’s ability to hide debt and other issues with Crown corporations. One of the other issues we heard about, which the member for Winnipeg North was going on about, is meeting the 2%. At committee, the Coast Guard came and told us that its money is now being counted as defence spending, even though it is for activities such as counting fish and scientific studies. This is the 2% the government is bragging about. Again, it needs to focus on procuring the weapons and equipment that our defence department and our men and women in uniform need, not playing that counting fish is a defence activity.”

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“The government should not use Canada Post as a good example for how to manage defence spending. The president of Canada Post said political interference from the government blocked its plan for five years and costs it over $1 billion a year.”

“Madam Speaker, I can only assume that the member opposite is playing out a scene from the Seinfeld episode “The Opposite”. He stands in this House and gives CBC as an example of openness and accountability, along with Canada Post. At the operations committee, we heard the president of Canada Post tell us at that for five years the government blocked the publication and implementation of its board’s strategic plan. The president stated publicly that the government’s political interference is a big reason that it is losing over $1 billion a year, yet the government wants to use the Canada Post business example as a reason to hand over the reins for defence spending. I think not.”

• 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 Alex Ruff

“I oppose this bill. The government keeps messing up military purchases and is just creating more bureaucracy to cover it up. Politicians need to stop interfering and buy what our troops actually need at the best price for taxpayers.”

“Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-40, which is called by the government “strengthening Canada’s defence sector act”. It is really just another example of Liberal failure and incompetence being covered up by creating a new bureaucracy, but this time we would actually get two bureaucracies for the price of one. There has been Liberal failure after Liberal failure for defence procurement, so the Liberals tried to create an extra agency, the DIA, the Defence Investment Agency, to cover up those previous failures instead of addressing them. Now we would have another bureaucracy covering up for the DIA, covering up for the previous failures. There has been from the government a long string of failures for military procurement. There was the F-35, for which the original agreement was famously signed back in the Chrétien days. Then, of course, there was Trudeau saying that we were not going to buy it and then that we were going to maybe buy it. Now the government is saying that we have bought some but that it is going to review whether we are buying others, and that it is not really not sure what is going on. There is the handgun debacle. Apart from purchasing a knife for the military, which is probably the lowest of the low-tech weapons, it has taken the government over 10 years to come up with a proper procurement process, such as for a handgun. Even after 10 years, it bungled it so badly that the winning bidder ended up suing the government, which further delayed it. Funny enough, now the RCMP is actually procuring weapons. It started the process in 2015, when the government came to power, but the government still has not finalized its procurement process. One would think it would just simply piggyback on the same 9mm bought by the armed forces, but that is too easy for the government. There were the frigates, which were many tens of billions of dollars over budget. If we remember back to the beginning of the frigate process with the national shipbuilding program, part of the tenet was that there would be no federal infrastructure money. The shipyards building them would have to build their own shipyards with their own money. What happened? The Liberal-connected Irving came hat in hand to the Liberal government, demanding 400 million more dollars, or otherwise there would be more cost overruns and more delays on the frigates. Despite the national shipbuilding agreement saying there would be no federal infrastructure money, the Liberals quickly cut a cheque. One of my favourites is the fixed-wing search-and-rescue CC-295. It was purchased with political interference in 2015 from the first public works minister, Judy Foote, who put her finger on the scale to push it toward Airbus so there would be, as she stated, jobs created for PAL in her riding. This was a plane that was not properly certified yet to fly in Canada— An hon. member: It is. Kelly McCauley: Madam Speaker, it is not fully, and the member opposite knows that. The government spent billions on this plane, and there are still ongoing issues with it. There is also GlobalEye. This is the one the Prime Minister interfered on and personally chose, so he could put hand over heart and say that we are working with our European allies, elbows up, instead of picking something else. Instead of going to a proper procurement process, we have GlobalEye, which is like an AEW&C plane. What is the problem with it? It is meant for a small European theatre, perhaps not for a country that is, surprisingly, the second-largest country in the world. I guess the government forgot that. It has no inflight refuelling capabilities, does not have 360-degree viewing for its radar and does not meet the requirements as set out by the RCAF, yet the government interfered with the procurement process to pick a plane that is not suitable for Canada. What is going to be perhaps the largest procurement ever is submarines. I am hearing now, and the government is free to refute it, that there is a stoppage in negotiations because apparently the German sub does not meet Royal Canadian Navy requirements. The government made a big splash, saying that it was going to do this and bring in so many jobs. It does not seem to focus on delivering what is best for our armed forces at the lowest price. It seems to focus on what is best for photo ops. I want to get back to the CC-295 Kingfisher. This one was famous for its complexity in the RFP process, which was so bloated with the requirements set by the Liberals that there was a legendary viral photo of Airbus delivering its RFP. It had to rent a U-Haul. The RFP was 100,000 pages. For Leonardo, the competing bidder, it was 180,000 pages. Somehow, with an RFP so complicated, set by the government, that it required 180,000 pages, the Liberals missed advising Leonardo that there were some loopholes that they could put in on the bids that allowed Airbus, despite putting in a bid 25% more expensive, to win the deal. Leonardo sued. What did the government do instead of fixing its procurement process? It quietly gave Leonardo a sole-source contract, worth billions of dollars, for the CH-149 Cormorant. Airbus is happy. Leonardo is happy. Who is not happy? The taxpayers and the RCAF are not happy. The government so overmodified the Airbus plane to justify purchasing. It is overweight and underpowered. Regulations require it to maintain a certain altitude on one engine, but the Kingfisher cannot. The equipment that it added so threw off the centre of gravity that it had to add counterweights, which of course added to the weight issue. There are icing vulnerabilities and modifications that changed the slipstream. As it was, search and rescue techs jumping out of the plane would get dragged into the airstream, bounced along the plane and killed or injured. What is the Liberals’ solution to their political meddling and incompetence? They would create the Defence Investment Agency. They hire their friend Doug Guzman, friend of the Prime Minister, and give him $1 million a year. Despite his comfy role and $1 million a year, he threatens to quit because they cannot get past the sclerotic process of procurement inflicted on the process by Canadians. Therefore they bring out Bill C-40. Even before the DIA is birthed by royal assent through the BIA, they would basically be killing it, replacing it with Bill C-40. The Liberals make a mess, create a bureaucracy to fix the mess and then would create another bureaucracy to fix the bureaucracy that was to fix the original mess. It reminds me of an episode from Yes, Minister, the episode “Jobs for the Boys”. The government tries to hide and resolve the financial failure of a mismanaged project. Rather than admitting its mistake and fixing the mistake, it resolves it by establishing a quango. What is a quango? It is a quasi-autonomous non-governmental organization. Instead of Bill C-40, the government, I think, should have named the bill “C-quango”. The famous Sir Humphrey explains that a failing government can always be rescued by establishing a new independent board or agency that allows the government to hand out jobs to its allies, such as Mr. Guzman, while adding a new layer of officialdom to oversee the original disaster. Does this sound familiar? Yes, it does. I want to quote right from the episode. Bernard says, “Sir Humphrey, this is a bit of a cover-up, isn’t it?” Sir Humphrey answers, “Certainly not, Bernard. It’s a responsible discretion exercised in the national interest to prevent unnecessary disclosure of eminently justifiable procedures in which the untimely revelation could severely impair public confidence.” Once again, quite often it is The Simpsons that is foreseeing the future in politics, but here we have another example in Yes, Minister. We do not need a quango. We do not need a Bill C-40 to fix procurement. We do not need a Defence Investment Agency to fix procurement. What we do need is for the Liberal government to depoliticize procurement. We need it to get out of the way. My colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound commented that during the Afghan war, in which he served, we were able to purchase howitzers and other weapons quickly through sole-sourcing. It can be done, and it can be done right. The government needs to focus on the best equipment for our men and women in uniform, at the best price for taxpayers, not on what is best for its announcements and photo ops.”

• Reasons given
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Reasoning 100 of 100

  This statement drew 8 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Tamara Kronis

“I do not trust this bill. It gives too much power to the minister and unelected officials instead of Parliament. The minister alone would get to decide whether to end worker strikes, with no accountability to this House.”

“Mr. Speaker, I do not have a lot of faith in this process the government is creating. There would be too much power in the hands of the minister and too much power with the bureaucrats. Part of the bill, and I wish I had more time to get to it, is changes to the Labour Code, wherein an adjudicator appointed by the government would decide or help to decide whether to end a labour issue, not the House, as has been done traditionally. We would perhaps have a conflicted facilitator advising the government, and the minister alone deciding whether to order a stoppage. There would be no accountability to the House or to Canadians.”

In response to a question from Vince Gasparro

“This bill promises a one-year approval timeline, but that is fake. The one-year clock only starts after the process is already underway, and the minister can still extend it. Some government members are also fighting against the very oil and gas projects this bill is supposed to help.”

“Mr. Speaker, I quite enjoy working with my hon. colleague on the operations committee. I think we have a mutual respect for each other. The legislation clearly proposes a one-year approval period, but it would not be one year as, perhaps, the government is pretending or creating propaganda about. It would be one year after the approval process gets through, and the minister could still step in and extend that one-year period. It is kind of a fake one year that the government is pushing out. Before the member spoke, we were debating with the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, who was pushing for an oil and gas cap and could not even answer the question of whether he supported the very pipeline the government wants to build at taxpayers’ expense. This is the issue. There is the paperwork, but members of his own government are opposing the oil and gas that Bill C-39 is supposed to be helping.”

“I do not want this bill to pass. It is another huge bill that breaks the government's promise to stop bundling unrelated laws together. We already gave the government special powers over a year ago to speed up big projects, and nothing got built. The problem is too many government rules and too much spending. The government should cut its regulations and let private businesses invest and build.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise on Bill C-39, another cynical Liberal bill. Do members remember years back when the Liberal government campaigned to end all government practice of using omnibus bills to reduce scrutiny of legislative measures? This was part of their campaign for a “real change” plan for restoring democracy. What do we have here? We have another massive omnibus bill, one of many introduced by a Liberal government that promised to do away with omnibus bills. It is the same Liberal government that promised to increase transparency, and it has done the opposite. It is the same Liberal government that said there would be more accountability for its legislation, yet we have the opposite. We have the same Liberal government creating side departments to circumvent Parliament and accountability, such as the Defence Investment Agency, which is called the DIA. It is actually more like the DOA because it is still being debated. It was created as part of the budget implementation act, but before it has even been officially created, the Liberals are already killing it off and trying to turn it into a Crown corporation, which would allow even less scrutiny and accountability. However, I digress. As I mentioned, here we go again with another omnibus bill from the Liberals. I am sure when they were putting this bill together, the Liberal PMO and other advisers were chortling about what a great wedge bill this is, because while it has legislation in it to increase economic growth, at the same time, there is a bit of a poison pill around labour so that if the Conservatives oppose the bill, they can say the Conservatives are opposing growth. If we support the bill, they will turn around and say the Conservatives are stabbing labour in the back. It is the same thing they are doing to my NDP colleagues. If the NDP does not support it, we know full well it is going to be a Liberal talking point to say the NDP is antidevelopment. If the NDP does support it, we know full well they will be saying the NDP supported all of their back-to-work legislation. It is a cynical wedge bill that could only be put forward by the government. It is unfortunate, but here we have it. Why, I have to ask, another piece of legislation? Over a year ago in this House, the Conservatives supported the Liberals in passing Bill C-5 and gave unprecedented powers to the government to push through projects at speeds we have never seen before, of course. What happened? Nothing. Nothing has been done or approved, except that the Major Projects Office and the DIA were created, but they have not moved at the speed of anything. The finance minister, when Bill C-5 was introduced, stated it was aimed at “accelerating transformative projects of national interest”. Where have we heard that? We have heard a lot lately about needing Bill C-39 to push through items of national interest. The Minister of Energy and Natural Resources said that Bill C-5 would remove barriers, leverage resources and help Canada become an energy superpower. That was for Bill C-5, so why is it repeated for Bill C-39? In this House, we gave the Liberals unprecedented powers to get projects built, to build the economy, to perhaps get a pipeline built, to develop the energy industry and to develop the mining industry, and nothing was done. They brought in the Major Projects Office to sidestep their own regulations. The question I have is, why does the government not just fix its broken regulatory regime? Why do we have all these bills and regulations on the books? Why do the Liberals have to create legislation such as Bill C-5 to get around their own bad laws and regulations, Bill C-39 to do the same thing and the Major Projects Office to do the same thing? With defence procurement, there is the DIA, which they are now killing off to create a Crown corporation. Why do we need cabinet or bureaucrats deciding what is deemed worthy of special treatment? That is what this is. It is the government picking winners and losers. It is no different from what the Liberals did a couple of years ago with piling taxpayers’ money into EV battery projects around the country for billions and billions of dollars. We saw it with Brampton. The Liberals gave Stellantis hundreds of millions of dollars. When we tried to investigate the money given to it, the deputy minister said that it was Stellantis that was refusing to release the documents about what happened with the money for Brampton. Stellantis came forward and said that this was not true, gave the documents and said the deputy minister was lying. Again, it goes back to the question of why the government is picking winners and losers. Why not clear up the regulatory regime, the 300,000 some-odd regulations that are on the books, so that private capital can decide what is a winner and what is a loser? How is it that we have a pipeline to the Lower Mainland, for which taxpayers are going to pay the bill of probably $50 billion, and $10 billion, give or take, to dredge up Roberts Bank, with more public money probably going into bailing out carbon capture? How is that in the public interest, with all the public money going into it, when we could just change our rules and allow the private sector to get that work done, as with northern gateway, originally proposed to a deepwater port, which did not need taxpayers’ money to dredge out? We did not need taxpayers’ money to build the pipeline. I support pipelines. We certainly need them. We saw today the gap between West Texas Intermediate and WCS, which is $25 a barrel because of the constrictions of exports caused by the government killing off northern gateway and killing off energy east. How is it in the public interest to spend billions and billions to do the pipeline when private capital could be doing it? Why not create a regulatory environment that is welcoming to capital and investment? The International Energy Agency calls the current energy crisis “the largest supply disruption in history”. Canada has the fourth-largest oil reserves. We are the only one in the top four that is a democracy, the only one that follows the rule of law. We would think people would be begging to develop our oil and gas and begging to get pipelines built to get oil. Instead, because of the Liberals and the regulatory regime, we have to have public money doing it. Why is the government doing this instead of just getting out of the way? According to a recent study, Canada has fallen from ninth to 18th on economic freedom. The factors in deciding this ranking include sound money, size of government and regulations. Under “Size of Government”, a thing that reads into our drop from ninth to 18th on freedom, is “Government consumption without interest payments”, which is very high under the government. “Government consumption with interest payments” is, again, very high. As for “Top marginal income tax rate and the threshold at which it applies”, the first thing the government did upon getting elected in 2015 was jack up the top marginal tax rate, followed by Premier Eby, it seems, right now. On “State ownership of assets”, having too much state ownership of assets causes us to drop lower in the ranking. What are we seeing? The government is going to be owning Pacific link on top of TransCanada because the Liberals have created a regulatory environment where no one is investing in Canada. Under “Sound Money” is “Money growth”. We saw the government printing hundreds of billions of dollars, with inflation. Under “Regulation” is “Regulatory burden”, which adds to our low ranking. There is “Bureaucracy costs” and “Impartial public administration”. It goes on and on. The government needs to get out of the way of private capital. It needs to get out of the way of business. It needs to reduce the regulatory burden. It needs to stop coming forward with all this legislation that is supposed to do so much but does nothing. The government just needs to get out of the way.”

• Reasons given
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Reasoning 100 of 100

  This statement drew 7 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

  See full analysis →
• Echo ×8

  A repeated line

  “Canada has the fourth-largest oil reserves in the world.”

  Said 8 times by 7 members since October 5.

  Every time it was said →

“The member opposite used to strongly support a cap on oil and gas. I want to know if he still supports that cap and if he supports the new pipeline to the British Columbia coast.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member opposite was very vocal not too long ago about imposing an oil and gas cap on Canada. I wonder if he still supports that and if he supports the planned pipeline through B.C. to the B.C. coast.”

“This bill gives ministers and officials too much power to make their own choices. They can decide what is in the national interest and delay project approvals whenever they want. We need clear rules instead of letting officials make things up as they go.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague brought up a lot of very valid points. One of them, of course, is that there is not a lot of structure. Despite the bill being 250 pages, there are a lot of areas where it would allow the bureaucracy or the ministers to make additional decisions. What is going to be in the national interest? Someone is going to be allowed to extend this magical one-year permit timeline at any time. I wonder if my colleague could spend a bit of time explaining the need to have clear direction in the rules and not allow so much leeway for ministers, the government or bureaucrats to mess around with the legislation.”

“The government says this bill will help build things faster. Instead of this bill, they should cancel the other laws that block pipelines and hurt Alberta.”

“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals talk about building things faster with Bill C-39. Why not get rid of the “no new pipelines” bill that was deemed mostly unconstitutional, Bill C-69, and get rid of the anti-Alberta bill, Bill C-48?”

In response to a question from Gord Johns

“The government needs to save money by cutting contracts with outside consulting companies like McKinsey and Deloitte. Public servants told our committee that their own departments could have done this work instead of paying these firms.”

“Madam Speaker, I do miss my colleague on the OGGO committee. I look forward to the day when he does return to join the government operations committee. The member has brought up a lot of valid facts. One of the issues he talked about was outside consultants. The Liberal-friendly McKinsey, one of the most vile, reprehensible companies in the entire world that helped supercharge the opioid crisis, continues to receive contracts from the Liberal government. In committee, we actually heard government employees testify that work they proposed to do and could cover within their own bureaucracy was pushed out to McKinsey for no reason. We heard this again and again, whether it was to Deloitte, McKinsey or others. The government should look at finding ways to save money for Canadians, and it could probably start with its management friends at McKinsey, Deloitte and all the other outside consulting companies.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Corey Hogan

“The fastest way to lower diesel prices is to cut taxes. We should remove the sales tax, the clean fuel standard, and the industrial carbon tax on diesel.”

“Madam Speaker, there is a much simpler answer to that, and that is to reduce the taxes on diesel. As the Conservatives have suggested, eliminate the GST on diesel, eliminate the clean fuel standard that is costing money, even according to the PBO and Environment Canada, and eliminate the industrial carbon tax. That would be the fastest thing to help reduce the price of diesel.”

• 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 →

“I support this bill to cut fuel taxes, but it does not go far enough. High gas and diesel prices make food and everything else cost more. The government voted against our plan to cut fuel taxes in May, and they claimed it would only help the rich. Now they are doing it themselves. I want them to explain why they changed their minds, and I want them to cut fuel taxes even more.”

“Madam Speaker, as I mentioned, the Conservatives are pushing for a more extensive gas tax cut to make life more affordable for Canadians. Last May, in fact, we put through an opposition day motion calling for the government to offer Canadians immediate relief by ending all federal taxes on gas and diesel for the rest of the year, including the GST; and permanently scrapping the clean fuel standard. We then called for it to be completely eliminated up until Canada Day next year. Of course, we saw that the Liberals had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to offer a partial tax break to Canadians. The price of gas is at probably an all-time high from what I have seen in my many years. It is $1.81 a litre in Edmonton, of all places, but I understand the provincial government is offering a 13¢ cut, coming on October 1. I just heard that today. More important, the price of diesel fuel has gone through the roof, at about $2.80 to $2.90 a litre. A lot of Canadians, when they think of diesel, just think of the crazy hippie down the road still driving the Volkswagen Rabbit on diesel or perhaps someone driving a big truck on diesel. They do not understand that diesel fuel is very much the lifeline of Canadian industry, farming and trucking. Where the price of diesel goes, so goes inflation. People who want to geek out on something should take a look at something called the crack spread. Generally simplified, that is the spread between the price of refined products and the price of oil, and it is at an all-time high right now. If they want to look into it more I suggest they follow a chap named Richard Dias on Twitter. He talks about it a lot. It is a coming problem for Canadians because they see the price of oil being one thing, but the price of gas and diesel, the refined products, is decoupling in a lot of ways from the price of oil and going even higher. Again, as go diesel prices, so go food costs and many other costs. I am glad that the government is at least offering some partial relief at the pumps. Again, it is unfortunate that it has had to be nagged into extending it, and only partially, but even a partial cut is better than no cut at all. It helps Canadians now. Keeping fuel taxes low should remain a priority going forward. For years, we have seen the current government claiming the carbon tax was not inflationary and fighting to keep the carbon tax. Like caving on the carbon tax, I am glad the Liberals caved a bit on extending the fuel tax rebate at least a bit longer. Currently, it is suspended only to January 2027, then resumes at 50% and then the full amount returns on April 1, 2027. Basically, the Liberal government is putting an expiry date on affordability. I mentioned at the beginning of my speech that the Conservatives put through an opposition day motion to eliminate all taxes on gas and diesel, etc., back in May, and the current Liberal government voted the motion down. I want to quote some of the Liberal members when they were arguing against a tax rebate for Canadians or a reduction of gas taxes. I will start with my friend and colleague from Winnipeg North. He said, “Why the hypocrisy from the Conservative Party of Canada when it comes to the issue of affordability?” This is the same member whose interventions I stopped counting at 40 times. He stood in this House at least 40 times during the last couple of years, defending the carbon tax as being a boon for Canadians for affordability. In May, he was arguing against further tax cuts on gas and now he is saying it is a panacea for everything. It is funny how, when the Conservatives proposed a gas tax cut, it was bad but now it is good. I am going to continue with the hypocrisy line a bit longer. As for the finance minister who introduced the bill, I counted over the last couple of years that he stood 25 times in this House defending the carbon tax. Every time the Conservatives put through a motion to eliminate the carbon tax, the finance minister, who is all about affordability now, stood and defended the carbon tax. The finance minister also stated that a gas tax is really not that important. Because 80% of the price of fuel was because of oil, therefore a tax change did not matter. Continuing on, a Liberal member stated that what we need to do is reduce taxes in ways that are responsible and to continue to invest in critical social programs. In May, the Liberals were arguing against a tax cut, but now a tax cut is good. A tax cut was bad before, but a tax cut is good now. Again, it is hypocrisy. Another member, a senior member, stated basically that tax cuts to gas are bad because they only help the rich: “This idea that the impact is going to be more substantial on low-income Canadians than on Canadians who are much more well off is just absolutely ludicrous... It does not make any sense”. Guess who actually says gas taxes are progressive and disproportionately hurt low-income Canadians. It is a bunch of far-right-wing think tanks such as the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the Canadian Labour Congress and the Smart Prosperity Institute. The government was actually stating in May that it did not want to cut taxes, because it would have only helped the super wealthy. Even though the PBO and others stated the carbon tax disproportionately hurt low-income Canadians, the government argued in May that tax cuts only help the wealthy. What are we doing today with Bill C-38? We are debating a tax cut. I guess super wealthy back then was different than super wealthy now. He went on and said, “What the Conservatives are proposing is more of a benefit for the ultrawealthy”, so I have to ask the Liberals why a tax cut in May was for the ultra-wealthy and a tax cut now is not for the ultra-wealthy. Are they just completely misinformed or perhaps, as the member for Winnipeg North states, “hypocrites”? The defence minister said, “[Conservatives know] that this handful of tax changes [that they had proposed in May] are not going to contend with the economic challenges we are facing in the United States. They are not going to contend with the Ukrainian war. They are not going to contend with the gulf war.” The Minister of National Defence, in June, was attacking Conservative-proposed tax cuts. They were no good, because they were not going to do anything about the war in Ukraine nor the war in Iran, so I will invite any member of the Liberals to stand up in the questions period and tell me what has changed since the minister of defence said that tax cuts would not change what was going on in the States. Why now? I am not arguing we should not do this tax cut. I am just saying we should do more, but I was calling out the hypocrisy of the Liberals who were fighting against Conservative proposals to cut taxes in May, and all of a sudden, under Bill C-38, the tax cuts not only are good and no longer help the “ultrawealthy”, as the Liberals say, but apparently, according to the minister of defence, they would fix the Ukrainian war, they would fix the war in Iran and the gulf and fix our issues with the U.S. It is wonderful. Another member says it is “absolutely crazy” to make the claim that cutting gas taxes helps low-income people. Again, it was utterly crazy in May, but somehow good now. We know cutting taxes is good. Milton Friedman says he is in favour of any tax cut at any time. I would agree. I am glad the Liberals are doing this, but I just point out the hypocrisy of fighting a gas tax cut in May and all of a sudden saying it is a glorious thing to do now. The member for Mount Royal complained that cutting gas taxes would hurt the environment. He also said that taxes have nothing to do with the price at the pump. Is that not amazing? A gas tax cut in May would have hurt the environment, and gas taxes had nothing to do with the price at the pump, but all of a sudden they do now. We also say fuel regulations do not add to the price Canadians pay at the pump, yet the PBO says it is going to be 17¢. Environment Canada says it will cost us at the pump. I realize my time is up. I will end it here. I will open questions. I again thank the Liberals for finally listening to the Conservatives and bringing in a tax cut to help Canadians.”

• Echo ×6

  A repeated line

  “Permanently scrap the clean fuel standard.”

  Said 6 times by 6 members since May 26.

  Every time it was said →