MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Luc Berthold

Follow by RSS

Berthold presses the government to cut fuel taxes and spending to save families money, citing a Conservative plan with “nearly $150 billion in potential savings”, and carries Bill C-231, the “friends of David bill” named for his late son, to let youth courts order addiction treatment. He argues with concrete figures and named constituents — Jessy’s weekly grocery bill rising from $120 to $170 — and often closes a question with a direct challenge, such as “When will the Liberal government finally reduce its spending?”Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
B+
80 / 100 over 79 statements
Signal 68 / 100
Relevance 72 / 100
Respect 99 / 100
Clarity 94 / 100
The usual mix, except that they lose points less than most for A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Averaged over the 79 of 89 statements graded so far.

Statements 89

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

In response to a question from Mario Simard

“My leader makes good decisions because he thinks about families who cannot pay their bills. A new report shows more people are using credit cards to buy food. Conservatives do not believe in raising taxes and making life cost more. The government should not take more money from taxpayers.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 14 of 100

    Only 1% of this reply directly addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
  • 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
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I will let you in on a secret. My leader always makes good decisions. Why? It is because my leader thinks about the families who cannot afford to pay their bills at the end of the month, who are just $200 away from being unable to make ends meet, who are being forced to borrow money. We saw it again this morning in the report from Dalhousie University: More and more people are being forced to use their credit cards to pay for their groceries because they do not have any money. It is clear that raising taxes and driving up the cost of living is just not in the Conservatives’ DNA. There are perhaps different choices that this government could have made to help the cultural industry, but taking more money out of taxpayers’ pockets should certainly not have been one of them.

“The Liberal government makes promises it cannot keep. It backed down to American tech companies instead of making them help pay for Canadian culture. Now Canadian taxpayers are on the hook for $600 million instead, and the government is 16 months late paying it. The government gave up a lot and got nothing in return.”
  • Speech on a motion

    Respect 99 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “What a negotiator he is.”.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I suspected that would be the answer. That is the Liberal government in a nutshell: grand statements, high-profile press conferences and promises. The Prime Minister tells us he will stand up for Canada’s interests and honour its commitments. There is a big difference between talking tough and negotiating tough. The Liberals seem to excel at making announcements. The problem is that they are unable to turn those announcements into results. Let us talk about the gift the Liberals handed to the digital giants in the U.S. What did Canada receive in return? Normally, a skilled negotiator makes concessions on some points in order to secure gains on others. A negotiator who walks away from the table without gaining anything should consider a different line of work. Am I suggesting that the Prime Minister should change jobs? I will let him draw his own conclusions. Let us review the facts. The Liberal government backed down under U.S. pressure when it came to the major digital platforms helping to fund Canadian culture. Netflix, Disney+ and other digital streaming giants had been expected to contribute 15%. Washington opposed that measure. What did the Liberal government choose to do? It chose to reverse course in June 2025. What has the government announced to try to smooth things over? It announced that $600 million would be paid to the cultural sector. That money is coming out of the pockets of Canadian taxpayers. Instead of taking that money out of the pockets of the American tech giants, the government is taking it out of the pockets of Canadian citizens. Earlier, the parliamentary secretary told us that this money would be paid out quickly. He was right to issue a correction. It has not been 18 months, it has been 16 months. This money should have been paid to businesses in the cultural sector 16 months ago, not 18 months ago. That is still a 16-month delay, 16 months too late, if we are to believe the Liberals’ promise. In other words, what the government did was cut costs for the American tech giants and ask taxpayers to make up the gap, but we got absolutely nothing in return. U.S. tariffs have not gone away and Canadian businesses continue to feel the consequences of the trade war. We made major concessions. What did we get in return? Nothing. Donald Trump got something. He got his concessions. The tech giants got a break. Canadians got left with the bill. However, we do not know when that bill will come, because no one has been paid. In short, it is a bad deal all around. What a negotiator he is. Artists, producers, creators and those who work in the cultural sector are the ones being left behind. They likely had high expectations with this announcement. On one hand, they have not received a single cent of the levies that were supposed to be paid out. On the other hand, none of the Liberals’ promises have materialized. The government promised a swift resolution, but instead it has created uncertainty. Raising people’s hopes only to disappoint them later is not how you run a country. Even the promised compensation has yet to materialize. This is not an isolated incident. I have pages and pages of examples where the Liberals have failed to keep their promises. It has become this government’s trademark. The Liberals table a bill promising to protect creators, yet nothing happens. They promise to help businesses by resolving the tariff crisis, but it is not working. They promise to lower the cost of groceries, but there are 2.35 million monthly visits to food banks. The government lectures Canadians about fiscal discipline when they themselves are incapable of it. One need only look at the PBO’s figures to see that. In closing, I would just like to say one thing: Never buy into a Liberal promise.

“The Liberal government makes promises but gets no results. It failed to stop American tariffs, and groceries cost more. Government offices also have long delays that hurt local businesses, and a minister attacked me politically for writing to her about it. I want everyone in the House to agree to let me table that letter.”
  • Speech on a motion

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this speech addressed the specific motion under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk. We are debating a motion today that perfectly illustrates how this Liberal government operates. In fact, I should say how it fails to operate, because since this new version of the old Liberal government was elected, we have heard a great deal of promises but seen very few results. We have heard grand promises, significant promises. The first was the Prime Minister’s promise that he would be the right person to resolve the tariff dispute with our neighbour to the south, Donald Trump, and that, because he is a prominent banker and has a wealth of experience, he would be able to find a solution that would ensure Canadians pay fewer tariffs. Eighteen months later, have we seen any improvement? When I speak to businesses in my riding, unfortunately they tell me quite the opposite. Every time that this government takes a step forward, it seems that the U.S. government and Donald Trump use it as an opportunity to raise tariffs. The first misleading claim by this government and this Prime Minister pointed to his long list of credentials and past experience to say that he was the right person for the job. Unfortunately, we have seen that he has been unable to reach an agreement with the Americans, and Canadians are left paying the price. The second major promise he made was that he would be judged by the prices at the grocery store. Of all the people I have spoken with, not one has told me that groceries have become less expensive over the past 18 months under this new Prime Minister from the same old Liberal government. I think that everyone understands what I mean. Once again, we have a government that talks a lot. Our leader likes to say that this Prime Minister is all talk and no action. Personally, I would say that he is all talk, a bad negotiator and short on results, because nothing is getting done. That is the reality. I will ask my Bloc Québécois colleagues for their indulgence, as I will return to the motion in a moment, because I want to say that I was asked this week about the fact that I had written to a minister of this Liberal government. It is as though there were something wrong with a member of Parliament writing to a minister because their department is not functioning properly to offer potential solutions. Unfortunately, the minister chose to use that letter to play partisan politics in the House. The Minister of Jobs and Families used a letter that I had sent her on behalf of three businesses in my riding to score political points, claiming that we say one thing and do another, when nothing could be further from the truth. Since I was unable to table this letter, I would like to read three short paragraphs expressing what I wanted to tell the minister. Here is an excerpt: The current delays at ESDC [Employment and Social Development Canada] are hard to fathom for businesses that rely on the processing times published by the department. In most cases brought to our attention, these processing times are not being met. Worse still, they sometimes end up twice as long as expected. A little further on, I wrote the following about one company’s experience: An LMIA [labour market impact assessment] for three workers was submitted last March 25. More than 90 days after it was filed, the business was still awaiting a reply, and two of the three workers involved were no longer able to work. Here is a passage concerning another business that illustrates a different issue deserving the minister’s attention: The company waited more than 150 days for a response to an LMIA. After more than five months, the file still had not been processed and, according to information sent to my office, had not even been taken in charge by ESDC. That is what I was telling the minister. I would not have made the letter public. I would not have brought it up here because I thought we could still sort things out with the Liberal ministers. However, it seems that we can no longer trust exchanges between a member who represents a riding and the ministers of this Liberal government. I think that is wrong and that there should seriously be a cabinet shuffle somewhere so that the people who are in those seats realize that they have a responsibility to all Canadians, not just Canadians in their ridings but Canadians in all ridings. That is what democracy is all about. They are government ministers who must represent everyone. I really wanted to get that on the record. I would also like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to table the letter if my colleagues agree.

“The government said it urgently needed to give $600 million to Canada's cultural sector after cutting taxes on big tech companies. Almost 18 months have passed, and no one has received any of that money. I want to know why this money has not been paid out.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague for his excellent French in answering questions today. However, my colleague’s response was somewhat inconsistent. He said that when his government abolished the levies imposed on the web giants, there was an urgent need to provide the cultural sector with the $600 million in question. However, here we are, nearly 18 months later, and, to the best of my knowledge, not a single player in Canada’s cultural sector has received any of those funds. How can he say it is urgent to provide this money when no one has seen a penny to date? Was this yet another empty promise from the Liberals?

Oral Questions ·

Points of Order

“The minister misled the House about what I wrote in a letter to her. I did not ask for more workers, I asked her to respect current workers. I want permission to table this letter.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During oral question period, the Minister of Jobs and Families misled the House by quoting me in her answer. I must inform the House that I did not, in any letter, ask for a single additional worker. It is important to correct that. I did not ask for a single additional worker in the letter I sent her. I asked the minister to show respect to current workers. If she believes she is right, I seek the permission of the House to table the letter I sent her.

Oral Questions ·

The Economy

“More Canadians are using food banks and cannot pay for groceries. Canadian families are cutting back and going without just to pay their bills. I want the government to admit that Canada is facing a serious cost of living crisis.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that every time the Liberals announce a new measure, more and more Canadians turn to food banks, and more and more Canadians are unable to pay their grocery bills. That is the reality. The Liberals may claim they are doing a lot, but the reality on the ground suggests that they are out of touch with what is happening. People can no longer make ends meet. For Canadian families, the discipline the finance minister was talking about means going without, cutting back on groceries, and putting off purchases to pay the bills. Will they at least acknowledge after question period that Canada is facing a serious cost of living crisis?

“The Prime Minister says our economy is growing faster, but the numbers show it is not. Canadians are struggling to pay their bills. I want the Prime Minister to admit that there is a cost-of-living crisis.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, on August 22, the Liberal Prime Minister, in yet another of his speeches, boasted that our growth is accelerating. Is that so? The Parliamentary Budget Officer has just set the record straight. Growth is only at 0.9% in 2026. Unemployment stands at 6.7% and inflation at 3.1%. While the Liberal Prime Minister spouts pretty words and makes the wrong predictions, Canadians are working hard, tightening their belts and struggling to pay their bills. Will he finally acknowledge the serious cost-of-living crisis, after 11 years of Liberal rule, or will he once again show us just how out of touch he is?

Private Members' Business ·

Youth Criminal Justice Act

In response to a question from Kelly DeRidder

“David was a kind, hard-working person with a bright future until he got addicted to drugs. We had planned to speak to young people together about avoiding addiction. Now my family and I will do that work without him, to help keep others from taking the same path.”
Official Hansard

How much time do I have, Mr. Speaker? I just read some comments on my social media, and everybody said that David was very polite. He was a good worker. He was respectful of everyone. He was the one who always took the time to give us a hug, me and his mother. He was a guy who was always taking care of his sisters. He was kind of a brilliant man. He had a great future until he met this bad friend. This bad friend just changed him, not his heart, because he was always that kind of guy, a polite, respectful hugger, but his mind was obsessed by drugs, and that changed him. I want the House to know that just a few years before, we had been talking about this. He had a great period of time. He had two children. We were talking about how we could help others who were facing his problem. We were supposed to do it together. We were supposed to do some speeches, some keynotes, together to help other children at a young age not to follow this road. I will do it alone, or not really alone but with my wife and my daughters, in his memory and to help others to not use those substances, which can really break the lives of a lot of people.

In response to a question from Rhéal Éloi Fortin

“All parties agree on this bill, and I want the House to pass it quickly. I hope the Senate passes it just as fast.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his contribution in committee. I want him to know that the sooner we get to work, the sooner we will be able to really change things. However, things are already going well, because everyone in the House agrees that we should pass the bill quickly. Everyone in the House agrees with the principle. The bill has to go to the other place now. I hope our friends at the other place will move as quickly as we are. I wish we could be unanimous and take a Kumbaya approach to all bills. Unfortunately, that is not possible. There are certain situations where we are able to do the right thing together, and I think this example illustrates that well. I am glad we can do this for David’s friends.

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“I want us to pass this bill. It will change the lives of many young people. All parties should work together to do this good thing for our youth.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I will try to answer in English. This bill could change the lives of a lot of kids and young people in this country. By principle, I think all of us are here to make life better for every Canadian. We do not always agree on the way to do it, but on this particular file, I am really proud that everyone is supporting the fact that we have a role to play. We can help if we just change some little words in the legislative agenda or in bills. Yes, I think we will act on principle to help people if we put partisanship aside and do something really good for our young people.

“I want the House to pass this bill. It lets youth courts delay sentencing so young people can go to treatment for drug addiction or mental health issues. Refusing treatment will not send a young person to jail. We must also make sure real treatment services exist in our communities, or this law will not work.”
Official Hansard

moved that the bill be now read the third time and passed. He said: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues. It is always emotional to rise in the House to introduce a private member’s bill. In 11 years, this is the first time I have had the opportunity to introduce a bill. It is a special occasion because there are so many of us in the House and so few of us get a chance to present our bills. I was given this opportunity at a rather special time in my life, when I really wanted to do something. Life has given me a reason to bring forward a private member’s bill that affects so many people, especially young people. That is why, last year, my wife Caro, my entire family and I thought about how we could use this opportunity to make a difference. This opportunity surfaced following discussions with officers at the Library of Parliament, who gave us their unwavering support from the outset, along with the law clerks of the House, about introducing a bill to help young people. That was the genesis of the friends of David bill, Bill C-231. As I said earlier, I am speaking on my own behalf, but also on behalf of my son David, who is no longer with us, my wife Caro, my daughters Marie-Soleil and Justine, and our big, beautiful family, who are supporting me with this bill. I would even go so far as to say that they are supporting me and all members of this House with this bill. I want to remind the House that the main purpose of Bill C-231, the friends of David bill, is to help young people struggling with drug addictions or mental health-related consequences. This aspect is a bit new, and I will talk about it more later on. The bill was amended in committee, and we just adopted a new version. I will come back to that a little later. Bill C‑231 comes into play when young people appear before the courts for offences committed as a result of their addiction. Since the cases involve minors, justice system actors, whether they are police officers, prosecutors or judges, should have the ability to refer them to a treatment centre rather than punishing them immediately, as would occur in all other circumstances. The objective is to help rather than punish, at a moment when the actions of adults can still have a meaningful influence on these young people’s lives. That is the purpose of Bill C‑231. I would also like to thank all my colleagues in the House. That is precisely what all members chose to do on April 15: They chose to try to influence young people, while there is still time to intervene, by voting unanimously in favour of Bill C‑231. A total of 327 members voted for its passage. No one opposed it. As for the members who were absent, they were “paired”, in parliamentary terminology, and therefore could not vote that day. Many of them nevertheless expressed their support to me afterward. Had they been able to cast a vote, they too would have voted in favour of the bill. Many people have already had the opportunity to see it, but not everyone has. I want everyone to know exactly what this bill will change: the youth criminal justice system. The bill sets out three main points. I think it is worth reading them this evening so that we all understand what this bill seeks to change, how we can help young people more and how we can ensure that they end up with a system that will help them to get back on the path to a better life rather than going down one that will lead them nowhere and that may cause them many problems throughout their life. The bill will, and I quote: (b) enable, in some cases, the youth justice court that finds a young person guilty of an offence to delay sentencing to enable the young person to participate in a problematic substance use treatment program or any other treatment program; We are talking about drugs. I will come back to that a bit later. It will also, and I quote: (c) enable the youth justice court to include in certain orders the condition of attending a problematic substance use treatment program or any other treatment program; and (d) provide that the youth justice court may include in an order for conditional supervision a condition that the young person attend a problematic substance use treatment program or any other treatment program. This could even allow a judge to require a young person to undergo treatment. As we know, when a young person is in that kind of situation, they will not always agree to participate in a treatment program. What we especially wanted to avoid was having a young person punished simply because they refused treatment. The bill specifically states that a refusal to participate in treatment cannot be held against the young person. Someone who attends a treatment program against their will is unlikely to benefit much from it. However, the bill would still allow a judge to tell the young person that they are being given an opportunity to participate and that, if they do so, the judge will not sentence them immediately. If things go well and the young person comes to understand the path they are on, they may be able to turn their life around more easily. Above all, it will give them a better start as they enter adulthood. Those who have been following my speeches from the beginning will notice that the bill has evolved somewhat. I would like to thank Minister of Justice, the staffers from his office, and officials from the Department of Justice, who suggested significant improvements to the bill when the committee was considering it. Now, orders will not be limited to just problematic substance use treatment programs. They could also apply to any other type of treatment program. I would never have dared go that far when I introduced my bill. I told myself that if we wanted to have the support of as many people as possible in the House and if we wanted to be able to truly change the lives of young people, we should really focus on a specific target, to keep people from challenging it or saying that it made no sense. The House gave unanimous support. When I saw the government’s proposals, asking why this should not be extended to other forms of treatment, like for mental health issues, I thought it was an excellent idea. We would have even liked it to be much broader than that. That said, this will now allow even more young people to be able to access this unique opportunity to get help rather than being punished by the justice system if they commit a first offence, if they have a first conviction for problematic substance use or drug use. This is excellent news for young people who are struggling, perhaps without knowing the cause or even being aware of it, but whose struggles may have been noticed by those around them or by judges, prosecutors or police officers. These measures will enable them to become aware of the issue and perhaps help them overcome it without having to go through all the negative consequences that such problems can entail. By broadening the scope of Bill C-231, as we did in committee thanks to the support of all members, we are ensuring that no young person will be left behind. I think this is great news. We will be able to help even more people. In a moment, I will speak about the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, but first I would like to thank every member of that committee for unanimously supporting the friends of David bill, as well as all the amendments that were proposed. Things got quite emotional in committee. We heard testimony from people from the office, but we also heard from members of my family. I learned things from some of my family members, things that we had not really talked about before. It was quite emotional. Being in front of an audience, talking about personal matters and learning things from my daughter was such a special moment. I learned some things from my colleagues as well. Some of my colleagues shared things that really moved me. I will share some of them. My wife reminded us that we have to stay united in our efforts to help young Canadians. She told the committee something that really stuck with me: “Inaction has serious consequences, profound and irreversible consequences. In our family, those consequences have a story, a face and a name, David.” That is why it is called the friends of David bill. My daughter Justine surprised me. She said a lot, but there is one thing she said that I wanted to read this evening to show how important it is that we act quickly. She said, “The more time goes by, the more substance use takes hold, and the more substance use takes hold, the harder it is to overcome.” Put that way, it sounds simple. Put that way, it sounds logical. However, when those words are said by my daughter, who lived with us and experienced those moments with David for a long time, who was both a witness and sometimes even a victim of the consequences of his decisions, it tells me that we are on the right track. What we want to do is, in fact, act more quickly. What we want to do is give young people a way to avoid going through that, as long as they realize it, of course. That is what the bill seeks to do: empower young people to realize what they are going through. Angy Riendeau is a criminologist who came to testify, at my request, and who set the record straight. In parliamentary committee, we are used to hearing from witnesses who come to say the same things as us, but Angy came to tell us the truth. I will quote her so that I get the words right. She set the record straight by pointing out that legislative changes cannot have the intended effects if the resources are unavailable. She said: We can add as many provisions as we like to a law, but if the resources aren’t there, if specialized assessments aren’t accessible, if families are left on their own for months, and if community stakeholders don’t feel supported to intervene quickly, our mission today will not be achieved. She even emphasized how important it is for parents to act at the first sign because, “at the first warning sign, a young person can truly access specialized assessment, concrete resources and adults capable of supporting them before the situation deteriorates”. When warning signs appear, people are available to help young folks, provided the resources are in place. Finally, Angy Riendeau, whom I thank for her participation, summed up what can truly change the course of a young person’s life: “Beyond legislation, a rapid response, the quality of human connection and real access to services are often what alter a trajectory”. She used to be a police officer and has now decided to devote her life to helping young people. I am very grateful to her for coming to tell us this, because up here in Parliament, we think we are doing a good job and that we have solutions for everything, but if the necessary resources are not actually provided on the ground, what we do here will not make any difference at all in the lives of young people. This is something my wife and I, along with anyone else who would like to help us in this effort, want to continue working on. My Bloc Québécois colleague from Rivière-du-Nord said, “I won’t speak for everyone around the table, but I think we’re practically all in agreement on the bill introduced by our colleague”. He went on to say: As a parent, I have always asked myself the following questions about my children: If I am too strict, will they run away, and if I am not strict enough, will they become delinquents? It’s true that we don’t know. No one has a crystal ball. I, too...would have liked to have someone like Ms. Riendeau with me. This shows how difficult it can be for parents to understand what is happening with their kids. Rhéal showed that. I am sorry, I should have said the member for Rivière-du-Nord. I thank my colleague because this is, indeed, a reality parents face, and we have been through it often. There were also some touching personal stories, like the story told by a Conservative member. I will not name him, because I did not ask his permission and because I do not necessarily want to tell his story, but he himself nearly took his own life 16 years ago and has known people who have struggled with addiction. He said in committee, “Some overcame these challenges, and others did not”, adding, “I believe that your work on this bill and your willingness to speak about the tragedy your family experienced will save lives”. He also said, “Justice and compassion both play a key role in our efforts and work”. The fact that this person had the courage to come and tell us this in a committee meeting—and that he is one of my colleagues—well, that was touching, and that is indeed the message we want to convey. My colleagues in the Liberal Party also emphasized how important it is to take action to help young people. Once my wife Caro and I decided to go public about our personal lives by tabling the friends of David bill, we found out that we are not the only ones who have gone through a tragedy like this, and we realized how many other families go through similar experiences. That is exactly why we must act now. I encourage members to take a look at the many comments made on social media after the bill was first tabled. People opened their hearts and shared some touching stories. If these people got a chance to express themselves and perhaps these young people got to experience something different because we dared to talk about it and the members dared to support my bill, the friends of David bill, I think we will have done something good.

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

In response to a question from Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault

“The Liberal Party still prefers raising taxes to letting Canadians keep their own money. We Conservatives want to leave money in people's pockets so they can pay for groceries. The Prime Minister has even taken ideas from our own platform.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 18 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
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I would like to welcome my colleague. He is fairly new here in the House. I hope he is enjoying his current seat. That said, he should bear in mind the changes that have taken place over the last few months. They tried to make us believe that the Liberal Party had changed, but it is still the same Liberal Party. It is a party that prefers taxes over leaving more money in people’s pockets so that they can make their own choices. It is a party that takes a paternalistic approach. Instead of leaving more money in people’s pockets so they can manage it themselves, the Liberal Party would rather tell them what to do. That is the problem with the Liberal Party. It thinks it is just a bit better than everyone else at managing people’s money. We Conservatives believe that if we leave more money in people’s pockets, they will be able to pay their grocery bill at the end of the month. That is what is best. As for the various measures we did not support, I could draw up a list of all the measures that the Prime Minister has decided to swipe from our election platform. I want my colleague to know that I believe we have done far more than he has over the past 10 years to help Canadians.

In response to a question from Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

“I want to suspend all fuel taxes right now until next July. The Bloc's plan involves too much paperwork and bureaucracy. Pausing the taxes immediately is the fastest, simplest way to help people pay for groceries.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I support any proposal that leaves more money in consumers’ pockets, but there is one aspect that troubles me. The problem with the approach proposed by my colleague is that it creates more bureaucracy, because people are needed to do the counting and the calculations. We Conservatives say that all taxes should be suspended quickly, immediately, until Canada Day next July. I understand that it will not be presented that way, but I believe that is the simplest and fastest solution and the one that would require the least paperwork while putting money back into people’s pockets right away, especially for those at home who are struggling to pay for groceries.

In response to a question from Élisabeth Brière

“No one knows when the conflict in Iran will end, so we cannot just wait for fuel prices to drop. The government should cut fuel taxes right now to save Canadians money.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 41 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
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, can my colleague predict when the conflict in Iran will end? Can she do that? The answer is no. What the Liberals are telling us is that they will wait and see what happens later. For months and months, they are going to keep taking money out of the pockets of Canadians, and then maybe, when the price of gas and diesel comes down enough, they will decide to do something about it. We Conservatives are calling for immediate action by maintaining the suspension of the excise tax and eliminating the industrial carbon tax, the clean fuel tax and the GST. These are measures that can be implemented immediately to save Canadians money right away. This is not about predicting the future; it is about the immediate reality that Canadians are actually facing.

“High diesel prices make food, shipping, and everyday goods cost more for Canadian families. I want the House to vote for our plan to lower fuel costs. Our plan cuts all taxes on diesel until July 2027, removes red tape, and helps Canada refine more of its own fuel.”
  • A repeated line

    “Including the industrial carbon tax and the clean fuel standard.”

    Said 10 times by 9 members since April 28.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my speaking time with the member for York—South Simcoe. The price of diesel is still extremely high in Quebec this week. For farmers, truck drivers and all the businesses that depend on fuel to survive, this means having to pay hundreds, even thousands of dollars more every day just to be able to keep on working. Where does every price hike at the pump end up? It ends up as part of their expenses. It ends up making transportation and production costs higher. Eventually, it ends up taking money from families’ pockets. We know that diesel, which is what we are talking about today, powers the tractors used to grow our food. It powers the trucks used to transport our purchases far and wide because we do not live next door to the factories. It is also essential for manufacturing. In short, diesel is everywhere in our lives, even if we do not put a single drop into our own vehicles. When farmers and truck drivers pay more, who ends up footing the bill? It is always Canadians. That is precisely why we, the Conservatives, decided to take action. With the motion we are moving today, we want to introduce and offer an emergency relief plan to bring prices down at the pump for Canadians and Quebeckers right now. We want to produce more fuel here in Canada. We want to better protect our country from future energy crises. Our plan is simple and has two parts. First, we will save Canadians money by reducing the taxes that are driving up diesel costs. Second, we will increase supply at home by accelerating refining, storage and transportation, while encouraging investment in those areas. The truth is that the current situation makes no sense. Not many people know this, but Canada has the fourth-biggest oil reserves in the world. We have the resources, we have the workers and we have the know-how. Unfortunately, after 11 years of Liberal government, Canadians and Quebeckers continue to pay far more for their fuel than they should. A country with such abundant oil resources should be better shielded from energy shocks. We should be increasing production when markets are under pressure, refining more of our own oil, and helping to boost supply so that we can become a true energy power. However, the opposite has been happening over the past 11 years. Liberal taxes have multiplied, Liberal delays have multiplied, and Liberal bureaucracy has multiplied. As a result, refining, storage and transportation projects still take years to obtain the necessary approvals. Neither Bill C‑5, nor Bill C‑38, nor Bill C‑39, nor any other bill the government may introduce will change the speed at which projects are actually delivered, because these are Liberal bills. Unfortunately, it is all hot air and political theatre, while nothing is really happening. The Liberals will point to wars, geopolitical tensions and market volatility to explain increases in diesel prices, and they are not wrong. Yes, it is true that these events have an impact on prices, but there is one thing they do not explain: Why are Canadians paying more than Americans? Why are Canadians paying more than the global average price of oil? As far as I know, Americans, along with everyone else in the world, are facing the same wars and the same price volatility. That is the question we should be asking ourselves. Why do we continue to pay more here in Canada, when we have the fourth-biggest oil reserve in the world? Meanwhile, other countries are looking at us and saying that they will not invest in our country. I agree that the Liberals cannot control what happens abroad. They are having a hard enough time controlling what is going on at home. However, there is something they can do. They can control the taxes they impose on Canadians. They can also remove the barriers, the bureaucracy and the red tape they created here. They had 11 years to strengthen our refining capacity, improve our infrastructure and make Canada less vulnerable. They did not do so. Who pays for all those wasted years? It is Quebeckers, Canadians, families, the unemployed, people waiting in line at food banks, and young people who have lost hope of ever owning their own home because housing prices have become unaffordable. That is the reality. Our plan aims to improve the lives of Canadians, young Canadians, and Canadian families. The first part of the plan is to help Canadians save money, as I mentioned. We propose eliminating all taxes on diesel sales, at least until July 1, 2027. That means extending the excise tax reduction until that date and eliminating the GST on fuel purchases. When Canadians are already paying so much for gas, the government should not keep taking even more from them every time they fill up. It should leave more money in their pockets. As we saw, it was pressure from the Conservatives that forced the Liberals to suspend the federal fuel excise tax. We asked for this many times, and the Liberals laughed at us. Suddenly, they decide to adopt a Conservative idea. There were even two motions in the House, but they voted against them. In the end, they did it anyway. Recently, they announced that they would keep this measure in place a little longer, but they also officially announced that fuel prices will go up in February and will go up even more in March. They had already anticipated both increases, and they decided against a 10¢ hike in favour of two five-cent hikes. They figured that it would be less obvious and that Canadians would not notice. However, Canadians are not fooled, especially when they get to the grocery store checkout and see the total. Today, we are asking the Liberals to go further. We want them to get rid of the taxes that increase the cost of producing diesel, including the industrial carbon tax and the clean fuel regulations. They say they want to make life more affordable. The Prime Minister even said that affordability in Canada is the best it has been in a decade. I have not heard that from anyone in my riding. I asked my constituents if they felt that life was cheaper than it had been in a decade. I asked them if they felt that they had saved money across the board this year. Everyone said no and that it was the opposite. The Prime Minister is literally out of touch. I assume he is going to tell his people not to vote in favour of our motion this week, because he does not know just how much families are struggling to make ends meet. That is the reality of an out-of-touch Prime Minister who spends more time flying around burning gas than down here seeing how every family is living and is struggling to pay their bills at the end of the month. Canadians do not need another explanation or another theatrical announcement. They want their bills reduced, period. We want the price gap with the United States to shrink, and we want to get that done in the next five years. Canada is going to have to increase its diesel production. Its production of other refined fuels is going to have to be ramped up to about a million barrels a day. That is a lot, but we can do it. In fact, we have the capacity to do it: We have the oil, the workers and the know-how. There is no reason to put up with the United States buying our oil at a discount and then selling us diesel at a higher price. The second part of our plan is to source more domestically. Projects take a long time, and the government slept through the past 11 years. Now it is time to get projects into production faster, cut red tape and avoid supporting bills that stand in the way of these projects. We were presented with Bill C‑5, which was supposed to fast-track projects at a speed never seen before. However, there has been an 18-month delay, because the Liberals have had to bring in a second bill to do the same thing. They changed one word in the title, but that does not produce more results. We want to fast-track projects and establish Canada as an energy powerhouse. We want Canadians to be able to save money and have more money in their pockets. That is why we are calling on the House to support our emergency plan to reduce prices at the pump, lower costs for Canadians and Quebeckers, accelerate investments and strengthen our energy security. It is simple: We want to save families money, develop our resources, produce more energy and better protect our country from the next crisis. That is the emergency plan, and we urge the Liberals to support it. I challenge them to do this for Canadians.

Oral Questions ·

International Trade

“The government gives us slogans instead of real answers. The Prime Minister said Canada was at war with the United States. Most of his personal investments are in the U.S. I want to know if that conflict of interest is why he is sending $8 billion to the American government.”
  • Opposition question in Question Period

    Respect 58 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “Is it because 90% of the Prime Minister's personal investments are in the United States that he is sending $8 billion…”.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, all of this government’s ministers are following the Liberal Prime Minister’s lead. They are giving us words, slogans, announcements and theatrics but never any results or real answers for Canadians. On August 22, the Prime Minister said that Canada was at war with the United States. When we asked him why, he simply said that it was because the Americans had attacked us. Is it because 90% of the Prime Minister’s personal investments are in the United States that he is sending $8 billion of our money to help the United States government wage war against us?

“The Prime Minister promised to buy and build in Canada, but he broke that promise. Spending on American companies is up by 50 percent, and eight billion Canadian dollars went to the American economy instead of ours. He needs to stop putting on a show and actually invest in Canada.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, their styles may differ, but this Liberal Prime Minister has the same obsession with grand theatrical announcements as his predecessor. This is just like the solemn promise to buy and build in Canada. It was all just hot air, because he has done exactly the opposite ever since making that promise. Government procurement from American companies has increased by 50%, and $8 billion of our money—money that belongs to workers, mothers and the unemployed—is boosting the American economy. It is like watching the same play against a different backdrop. When will he stop grandstanding and actually invest in Canada?

Government Orders ·

Building Canada Strong Act

In response to a question from Leah Gazan

“I still have four minutes left to answer questions from Friday.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I think I had four minutes left to answer questions from last Friday.

Government Orders ·

Building Canada Strong Act

“Families are struggling to pay for groceries and rent. The government says this bill will fast-track major building projects to boost the economy. But its last bill was supposed to do that too, and nothing got built. I doubt this new one-year timeline is real, because the government can delay starting the clock or pause it. We need answers in committee, because Canadians need real jobs and lower costs, not more empty promises.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, allow me to acknowledge the work of the firefighters from Lac-Mégantic, Nantes, Lac-Drolet and Audet, who yesterday fought a fire that devastated an apartment block near Lac-Mégantic town centre. Several residents were impacted and lost their homes, and the Red Cross is there to support them. Fortunately, no one was injured thanks to the support and assistance of everyone living in the surrounding area. Once again, I would like to thank the firefighters. Canadians do not judge a government by the number of announcements or programs it creates. They judge it by what is left in their pockets, by their ability to put food on the table and to look to the future with a little more confidence. Today, too many families are telling us that life is becoming increasingly difficult. It is time to save Canadian families money. It is time to protect Canadians’ jobs. It is time to ensure their safety. It is time to fix our immigration system. It is time to put Canada first again. This is exactly the Conservative plan we are proposing to Canadians and that we are asking the government to support. In the House this week, I talked about Jessy, who lives in Notre-Dame-de-Lourdes. Not very long ago, she was spending about $120 a week on groceries. Now they cost her about $170 a week. That amounts to $50 more a week, every week. Jessy does not measure the Canadian economy based on numbers, statistics or how many programs the government announces, and certainly not based on the number of press conferences, symposia or speeches that the Prime Minister delivers in foreign countries. She measures it by how much she has when she gets to the grocery store checkout, and how much is left to pay for everything else. Obviously, she is not alone. We also spoke in the House this week about Olesya, who has to use her credit card to pay rent and feed her family. We talked about Chantal, a single mother in Saint‑Georges who works full-time but still needs to use a food bank. That reality, their reality, is what should guide us here, in the House, with every decision we make. That is why Bill C-39, before us today, deserves our serious consideration. I hear the government members asking what the connection is between Bill C-39 and Jessy’s grocery bill, since Bill C-39 deals with environmental assessments, major projects, permits and federal regulations. However, there is a very simple and very real connection. An economy that can attract investment, carry out major projects and create good jobs provides more opportunities for families and workers. On the other hand, when a project remains stalled for years in a process where no one knows when a decision will be made, the uncertainty ends up costing everyone: the businesses that are waiting for the decision, the workers who are waiting for jobs and the regions who are waiting for the economic benefits of those projects. We have heard this song from the government before, when it told us that it wanted to fast-track major projects. Eighteen months ago, we were asked to pass Bill C-5 in a rush. What was the bill’s purpose? It was meant to decide exactly which major projects could be fast-tracked, because the Prime Minister had said when he was elected that the government was going to move faster than ever before. Acting in good faith, the Conservatives supported the Liberals’ Bill C‑5. Acting in good faith, we figured that, considering the circumstances and the tariff war with the United States, we should do our part, set partisanship aside, collaborate and put Canada first. We believed that the Liberals really wanted to move fast, do better and, above all, get major projects going again. We are a little disappointed, very disappointed even, with the outcome. Eighteen months on, there are no new major projects and no new shovels in the ground to get them built. We have not seen any new projects to ensure our independence from the U.S. We are therefore a little skeptical. Today, the government is focusing on Bill C‑39. What does this bill add? It adds a new word to the title. It also adds a few hundred pages to show how badly the government dropped the ball when it introduced Bill C‑5. That is the reality. Bill C‑5 did not do what it was supposed to do, so here we are, 18 months later, with Bill C‑39. The purpose of the bill is to speed up projects and make everything faster. For example, the government wants each project to have a single assessment and it wants projects to be carried out within one year. The bill also amends certain laws, including the Canada Labour Code. Over the past 18 months, we have seen announcement after announcement. Some projects have been announced. There have been lists of projects, but none of them have been fully completed. Most of the announcements have been about new government structures. Announcing a project or a bill and actually setting it in motion or implementing it are two different things. A company planning to invest millions or billions of dollars in Canada needs to know what rules it will be subject to, who will make the decision and, above all, how long it will have to wait. According to Bill C-39, it will take a year. A year from when? Does a year mean 12 consecutive months without a single day’s break, or is it a year with breaks to allow the government to catch up? The private sector moves quickly. The Liberal government is slow. Through Bill C-39, the government has given itself the option to pause the clock during the one year in which everything is supposed to take place. According to Bill C-39, the clock starts ticking once the company has completed all the studies required for the submission of its project. Carrying out the studies required for the project’s submission means carrying out the studies that the government will ask it to carry out. If the government asks questions and demands study after study to avoid having to start the clock for a year, it is the company that will end up taking all that time to carry out the project. It is important that we get more explanations and more information about Bill C-39. The devil is in the details when it comes to figuring out whether the government is serious or whether it is merely posturing or grandstanding, claiming that it is taking care of business when nothing is actually getting done. We want to get everything in place as quickly as possible. We want projects. We want to make Canada more independent and more self-reliant. We want to get projects built. There are over 500 projects in the queue that could be built right now. Unfortunately, the government has wasted 18 months since Bill C-5 passed, and these projects are still just ideas in the minds of business leaders. We will be lucky if they are still around, because the crisis is getting worse and investors may be less keen to invest. A company in my riding had to adopt job sharing as of yesterday. Because of the tariff war and the countertariffs, this company has to pay between $500,000 and $1 million a week in cash just to stay afloat. I do not think this is the time to be asking it to use its cash reserves to invest in Canada. That is the result of 18 months of inaction by the Liberal government. We are going to closely monitor the committee’s study of Bill C-39. We will see if jobs are being created and if businesses are investing. Above all, we will see if Jessy will have more money in her pocket to pay for groceries at the end of the month. What matters most is that women like Jessy, from Notre-Dame-de-Lourdes, or Chantal, from Beauce, have more money and are able to make ends meet. They want hope, hope that they will be able to keep living the life Canada once promised, that is, a life where they can live on a safe street with enough money to pay their bills at the end of the month. Canadians do not want more announcements. Canadians want real results.

Oral Questions ·

The Economy

“Government programs are not helping people afford food. Groceries cost too much. I want the government to end all fuel taxes permanently to save people money.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that is a lot of programs and a lot of words for very little in the way of results. Jessy from Centre-du-Québec is desperate. Her weekly grocery budget has gone from $120 to $170. She says it is clear that our dear Prime Minister has never had to pinch his pennies to buy groceries. Jessy is stretching every dollar to make ends meet. We want to help Jessy save money by axing all fuel taxes, not just suspending them briefly until next year. When will the Liberal government adopt our Conservative plan and give families a bit of breathing room?