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

Oral Questions ·

The Economy

“Canadians are struggling to afford groceries and debt is rising. The Prime Minister broke his promise to build a strong economy. The government should adopt our plan to save people money.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, after a year and a half of the Prime Minister’s lofty liberal rhetoric, there is very little to show for it. He promised the strongest economy in the G7. The figures speak for themselves. According to the National Payroll Institute, half of workers are now spending all of their take-home pay or going into debt just to make ends meet. While MPs on the other side of the House are laughing, I would remind them that 28% of Canadians are living paycheque to paycheque. For more than half of them, the weekly grocery run is a leading source of financial stress. Liberal rhetoric does not help pay for groceries. When will they adopt our Conservative action plan to save Canadians money?

Government Orders ·

Canadian Fuel Affordability Act

In response to a question from Arnold Viersen

“The government is taking its ideas from the Conservatives. We asked to cut gas taxes in 2022, in 2024, and again in April 2026, just four days before the government introduced its plan.”
  • 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, the first time we talked about cutting taxes on gas was in May 2022. After that, we repeated the ask in June 2024, and we tabled a motion here to cut all taxes on gas on April 2026, which was four days before the government put its own proposal on the table. Yes, the government is taking a lot of ideas from the Conservatives.

In response to a question from Gord Johns

“I want the government to pause all taxes on gas until July 1, 2027. I am not defending big oil companies, but cutting these taxes is the fastest way to save Canadians money.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I will not defend the big oil and gas companies. I come from a region that was a victim of the gas cartel. Companies have to reimburse a lot of people in my riding because they were fixing gas prices together. I am not here to make their court case, but I must say that, what we can control right now, immediately, is the tax on gas to provide some relief to Canadians. I am asking the government again to please suspend all taxes on gas until July, 1 2027. Let us save money for Canadians.

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“The Liberals criticized us for years for wanting to get rid of the carbon tax. Now they support ending it and cutting fuel taxes too. These were Conservative ideas first. I am glad if they adopt our plans to save Canadians money, but they should admit where the ideas came from.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 28 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 thank my colleague, who never fails to surprise us when he takes the floor. He is trying to give the credit for our ideas, the ones that were proposed and brought forward here by the Conservatives, to the new Prime Minister, who is part of the same government as the former Liberal government. We spent years saying that the federal carbon tax should be abolished. That very same MP criticized us for wanting that. He said we were going to destroy the planet. What has happened? Now there is a new leader who has suddenly become an advocate of abolishing the carbon tax. Unbelievable. Now, that party is embracing the idea of reducing the excise tax on gasoline. Frankly, the Liberals are welcome to adopt plenty more ideas like that if they save Canadians money. I have no problem with them implementing our policies, but they should let us know every now and then when they are going to take ideas from our playbook. Canadians know that there is only one party looking after their wallets, and that is the Conservative Party.

In response to a question from Gord Johns

“I support this bill because it pauses the fuel tax, but it does not go far enough. High gas prices make life and food too expensive, especially in rural areas where people must drive. We should cut all federal taxes on fuel until July 2027 to save families over $1,000 a year.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague for his excellent speech. I want to address those watching this debate closely at home, because people all across Canada are feeling the strain of the cost of living. Families are working, paying their bills and doing what they have always done, but unfortunately, many of them are finding that they have less and less money left in their pockets at the end of the month. A recent study showed that people have less than $100 left in their pockets at the end of the month to make ends meet. One hundred dollars is not a lot. Quebeckers are also facing this challenge. They see it at the grocery store, in the cost of housing and insurance and even every time they have to stop at the gas station to fill up. Behind the numbers we are discussing here in Ottawa, the statistics and examples from overseas, lies a very different challenge for families. Families have to make choices, put off purchases because they cannot afford them or cut back just to be able to pay for essentials, such as heating, groceries or school supplies. In short, they have to make tough choices. That is why it is time to get back to basics in Canada. It is time to save Canadians money by cutting the taxes and government spending that are making absolutely everything more expensive, as I mentioned earlier. It is time to protect Canadians’ jobs and to keep Canadians safe. It is not right that people in Canada have to think twice before going out at night because they do not feel safe. Why is that? It is because, over the past few years, the government has implemented reforms that make it easier to put criminals back on the streets than in prison. What I just said is no joke. It is the truth. It is also time to fix our immigration system and put Canada first. We, the Conservatives, have identified nearly $150 billion in potential savings in government spending. That is $10,000 in savings per family in taxes. When we talk about saving Canadians money, we need to look at the expenses they have to cover every week. Gas and fuel are part of that. For millions of Canadians, especially Quebeckers who live in rural areas, filling up is not an expense they can simply decide to put off until later. In my riding of Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, a car is a necessity, not a luxury. People need a car to get to work, drive the kids to school and activities, go grocery shopping and get to medical appointments. In short, they need a car to get everywhere they need to go. There are no subway stops every block or buses that come by every 10 minutes in our municipalities. When we look at the Régie de l’énergie du Québec’s data on the price of gas, that has a direct effect on our communities. If we use the published gas prices to calculate how much it will cost to fill up a 60-litre tank, it quickly adds up to over a hundred dollars per fill-up. That is a recurring weekly expense for many workers in Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière and all regions of Quebec. Drivers in Estrie called into the radio station 107.7 to say that they are now cutting back on their trips to save on gas so they can get around when it is truly essential. When people start changing their travel habits just to save on gas they cannot afford, it shows just how much the price at the pump is eating into their budgets. As I said, this is not limited to the Estrie region. On September 17, the price of gas was $2.80 per litre at some gas stations in Montreal. The provincial average was $1.96 per litre. In some regions, the situation is even worse. In Radisson, in northern Quebec, the price of gas recently reached $2.37 per litre. This shows how much of a burden fuel costs can be for families who have no choice but to travel by car. When we talk about affordability, we are talking about the ability of Quebec and Canadian families to pay for essential expenses. Right now, Canadians are benefiting from a pause on the federal fuel excise tax. Bill C‑38, which we are discussing today, will extend the full suspension until January 31, 2027. A rate equal to 50% of the regular excise tax rate will be in effect during February and March, before the regular rate resumes in the spring. What does that mean in practical terms? It means that the federal tax on gas and diesel will be suspended, but that as of February 1, it will go back up to 50% of the regular rate. Then, on April 1, according to today’s announcement, the price of gas will not decrease but rather will go back up again. The regular rates will be reinstated. The relief that Canadians are receiving now is already supposed to decrease in February and March of next year. For a family that needs to gas up regularly, sometimes for two vehicles, these costs add up. We must not forget that the extension was announced after months of Conservative calls for the government to keep the fuel tax relief going. We introduced two opposition motions in the House asking for all fuel taxes to be suspended, meaning the clean fuel tax, the GST and the excise tax, not just until Labour Day, but until July 1 next year. Both times, the Conservatives were the only ones to vote in favour of these motions. The Liberals voted no, the Bloc Québécois voted no and the NDP voted no. Under pressure, the government came to realize that it would be foolish to kick off the parliamentary session by raising the price of gas by 10¢ per litre for everyone. People would associate the price hike with the Liberals, so the Liberals decided to pick a quieter time, over the winter, when people will not be paying much attention to what is going on. However, winter is when people need their vehicles the most. Riding a bike is not an option; there are no other options. People need their vehicles even more. Today, the Liberals are saying that on February 1, when it will be -40°C out, gas prices are going to rise by five cents a litre. That is the proposal before us today. In our opinion, we need to go further. If lowering fuel taxes lets families and workers keep more of their own money, that is the direction we should take. Families will still be paying their bills in February. They will still be going places. Workers in Thetford Mines will still be going to work. Families in Lac‑Mégantic will still have to drive their kids to their activities. Farmers in Lotbinière will still have to keep farming. Truckers will still have to keep transporting goods. Expenses never take a holiday. As the Conservatives see it, an extension of a few months is good, but not good enough. Bill C-38 offers some relief, but it is only a half measure. What we need is to pause all gas taxes until July 1, 2027, and then see how the economy is doing and whether enough time has passed for the market to normalize. If the Liberals’ projects were actually moving as quickly as they claim they are, we could be producing more oil here in Canada. That would help lower gas prices for everyone, but unfortunately, we hear a lot of talk from that side of the House, but we see very little action when it comes to actually delivering anything. Our proposal would result in savings of 25¢ per litre, or more than $1,000 a year for a Canadian family. On a 60-litre fill-up, as I said earlier, that means $15 in savings. That is right, $15 on a single fill-up. Multiply that by the 52 weeks in a year, since drivers usually fill up at least once a week, and we get savings of over $1,000 a year, which could make a real difference in a family’s budget. As we know, Bill C‑38 deals only with the federal government. When we say we need to go a little further, it is because we can take action on the things in our control. We do control the three taxes I mentioned, and if the Liberal government wanted to, it could provide relief to families for a little longer. Rising gas prices also have a very negative impact. Every time the price of gas and diesel goes up, the price of our food goes up. Marc Cadieux, president of the Association du camionnage du Québec, was very clear on this, saying that fuel is the second-highest cost for carriers and that this increase is ultimately passed on to consumers. There is a dual impact. The government is going to raise taxes for everyone, and then that tax increase will once again be passed on to everyone. At the end of the day, who pays? It is always the consumer who pays. In closing, I want to add one more thing. We need to cut taxes even further to ease the pressure on Canadians’ wallets. In Quebec’s regions, filling up a gas tank is not optional, and neither is paying taxes. However, when we can control that and help people, we must do so. That is the decision that needs to be made. I hope that the government will realize that some day.

Oral Questions ·

The Economy

“The government's gas tax cut does not go far enough. We want to cut all gas taxes for the entire year, cut taxes on building homes, and remove the sales tax on Canadian-made cars. When will the government adopt our plan to help Canadians save money?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, is it worth reminding the Minister of Finance that lowering the gas tax was the Conservatives’ idea? It is easy to table that today, but for families, every dollar counts. We were asking to get rid of all gas taxes for the entire year, not just one. What we are going to get this afternoon is a timetable. Our economic plan includes concrete measures such as reducing taxes on housing construction, eliminating the GST on vehicles manufactured in Canada, and eliminating all taxes on gasoline. When will the Liberal government adopt the Conservative plan so that all Quebeckers and all Canadians can save money?

“Families are struggling to afford food and housing while the government spends too much money. Our plan would save over 150 billion dollars, or 10,000 dollars per family, to lower their taxes. I want the government to cut spending and adopt our plan.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, while families are cutting back on groceries, struggling to put a roof over their heads and putting off purchases, the Liberal government continues to spend recklessly. Our Conservative plan would result in savings of over $150 billion, or $10,000 per family, which would lower families’ tax burden and give them some breathing room. When will the Liberal government finally reduce its spending and adopt the Conservative plan to save money for all Canadians?

Government Orders ·

Combatting Hate Act

“I thank the member for his years of public service. I disagree with his political goals, but I wish him well as he continues to serve the people he represents.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the member for Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton for his remarks and for the years he has spent serving the people of his riding. Although I do not share his political goals, especially the ones he has pursued here in Ottawa, I believe he is heading to a place where he will be able to speak about independence and sovereignty to his heart’s content. On behalf of all my Conservative colleagues, I wish him not success in his mission but rather that he continue his work for the people he represents, just as we all do here with heart, joy, and passion.

Oral Questions ·

Presence in Gallery

“The government House leader insulted one of our members today. Every seat in the House is equally important. He should apologize.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, during question period, the Leader of the Government in the House made derogatory comments about one of our members. I have to say that any seat one occupies here in the House is just as important as any other, and I would invite him to apologize to all—

Oral Questions ·

The Environment

“People are losing access to Quebec's lakes because boat ramps are closing or costing too much. The government is doing nothing to help local leaders. I want the government to protect public access to these waters for everyone.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Canada is a country of lakes, mountains and rivers. Sadly, more and more anglers, paddlers and boaters fear they will lose access to Quebec’s lakes. While public access points are disappearing or becoming prohibitively expensive, the Liberals are looking the other way and leaving local authorities to fend for themselves. These waterways belong to all Canadians. When will the Liberal government take action to protect fair access for everyone?

Oral Questions ·

The Economy

“Canadians are struggling to get by because of inflation. I want the Prime Minister to stop spending so much public money on luxury meals while travelling.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, they want us to applaud them for putting a bandage over a wound they created. That is the issue. I have a message for the Prime Minister, who is at the G7. I also have a message for this minister. Rogelio Rigor, a Quebec father working two jobs, told La Presse, “I was just barely surviving.” He had to file a consumer proposal. This is the Liberal Prime Minister’s real economic record. Instead of spending nearly $1 million on luxury meals while travelling, is the Liberal Prime Minister prepared to give up his smoked salmon, considering that Rogelio has sacrificed everything as a result of Liberal inflation?

“Canadians are struggling to afford food and housing while the Prime Minister wastes money on luxury trips. I want him to stop the spending and policies that made life so expensive.”
  • A repeated line

    “The Prime Minister is now the only G7 leader to push his country into recession.”

    Said 5 times by 5 members since May 29.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister will attend the G7 summit today as the only leader to have led his country into a recession. Full-time workers are living in RVs because they can no longer afford housing. According to United Way, 60% of Canadians are anxious about their finances, and 38% are food insecure, yet the Liberal Prime Minister finds a way to spend $1 million on luxury inflight meals. Will the Liberal Prime Minister finally put an end to the inflationary spending, bureaucracy and policies that created this Canadian cost-of-living crisis?

Government Orders ·

Business of the House

“I want the government to tell us what work is planned for the rest of this week and next week. I also want to know if the House will keep sitting, and I hope the government will not cut off debate.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to ask this long-awaited question, as my colleague the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons would say. As we know, millions of Canadians look forward to this every week. I have even heard that people in France are waiting for this moment. Apparently, we are quite popular. Last night, an article on the Radio-Canada website stated that the Prime Minister had adjourned the House. Understandably, everyone is wondering why we are still here today. Can my dear colleague from the government tell us if we are, indeed, here? Will we be here tomorrow? Will we be here next week? If so, what business does the government have planned for all those days? I hope the government is not planning on using time allocation again and again. That said, if we are here, we will do our job. However, we have to actually be here.

Oral Questions ·

Seniors

“The government changed the rules for a seniors grant program at the last minute, making it too hard for local groups to apply. Seniors in my riding are complaining. I want the minister to explain why the government made these changes.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that is not even an answer. I heard something unbelievable. Why did the Liberals “liberalize” the New Horizons for Seniors program? Just a few days before the 2026 call for proposals was launched, the Liberals changed the rules and made it impossible for organizations to apply for grants. I have received about a dozen complaint letters from farm women in seniors clubs. Will the Liberals have to create another program to help our seniors apply for the New Horizons program? That does not make any sense. I am going to share the minister’s response with all of the Liberal ridings, and then we will see what those MPs have to say to the minister, who is telling members that they are not doing their job.

Government Orders ·

Government Orders

“I want to confirm that the deadline is midnight tonight, not in September.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I just want to make sure that it is midnight tonight and not midnight in September.

“I want permission to table a news article. It says the Prime Minister decided to end this session of Parliament.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It seems that the members opposite are unaware of the news that the House has apparently adjourned, according to the Liberal Prime Minister. I therefore seek unanimous consent to table the Radio-Canada article to inform them of the decision that the Prime Minister seems to have made without telling them.

“The Prime Minister announced that the House has adjourned for the summer. I want my colleague to explain why we are still here debating.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Relevance 0 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I should have said that the Liberal Prime Minister’s government “has announced that the House has adjourned for the summer”. Can my colleague, who is the critic for institutions, explain to me why we are still debating here in the House when the Liberal Prime Minister has announced that the House has already adjourned for the summer? I am completely baffled. Did he, by any chance, intend to adjourn the House at the end of the day? I would like my colleague to clarify that.

“The government criticized me earlier for trying to pause our debate. But a new news report says the Prime Minister is the one who actually decided to end our work early for vacation.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Relevance 0 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am a bit perplexed to be rising to speak before the House, given that the parliamentary secretary across the way criticized me just a short while ago for moving to adjourn the debate. However, we are now learning that it was actually the Prime Minister who did so, according to a Radio-Canada article that was just published. Allow me to read an extract: Vacation time has (already) started in Ottawa The members of the House of Commons are on vacation. Mark Carney’s government has announced that—

In response to a question from Jagsharan Singh Mahal

“I support most of this bill. It protects women and children by punishing people who create fake nude images, commit sextortion, or kill their intimate partners. But I oppose a section that lets judges give shorter sentences for serious crimes. I move that the House adjourn for the day.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I too would like to acknowledge the strength of my colleague from the riding whose name is too long to mention tonight. Everyone knows who I am talking about. He is recovering from the cardiac issues he had this morning. The entire House stands behind him. I have received numerous messages from all parties, and I want to let him know that. He is a good person who deserves all our respect. I think we absolutely must send him positive vibes tonight. I saw him just two weeks ago, working out with my colleague from Montmorency—Charlevoix. He had been going strong for 20 minutes. He is usually bursting with energy, but one never knows. No one ever knows what is going on inside, when things might take a turn. I urge all men to be careful and to pay attention to the warning signs of these terrible heart diseases. I would also like to take the opportunity to thank all of my colleges who reached out to me over the past few days about the matter I discussed with the media, a personal matter that happened back in 2025. Without repeating it here tonight, I simply want to thank all my colleagues from all the parties. I want to thank everyone who is going to support Bill C‑231 for David’s friends. I also want to thank all the people in their homes who agreed to tell me how things are for them now. We do not talk about it enough, or talk about it a lot. If I was able to bring certain people a little peace of mind by talking about it, then I will keep doing so. Members of the House certainly share the same desire to help and to do something for people in these kinds of situations, where drug use far exceeds our capacity as parents, or our capacity as young people, to cope with all the problems it can cause. That brings me to Bill C-16, which is a bill that we could have almost introduced ourselves. However, I want to stress the word “almost”. This bill aligns with many of the Conservative Party’s objectives, including protecting victims and putting criminals behind bars. It seeks to ensure that victims are properly recognized by the courts. It seeks to prohibit things that did not exist before but that came to be because of new technologies, including the much-discussed deepfakes. This week, we saw in Quebec newspapers that it takes only 10 minutes to create a deepfake nude image of a young girl. That is absolutely appalling. We have to put an end to these new technologies and, more importantly, stop those who are misusing them to cause harm to others. The ban on deepfakes, particularly when they target intimate partners, seeks to protect Canadians, particularly women, from the creation and distribution of non-consensual intimate images. It is very serious to create or distribute these kinds of photos of young girls without their consent. I hope people understand that. We are also pleased that the government picked up the proposal by my Conservative colleague contained in Bill C‑216. Some of that bill’s provisions seeking to introduce mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse material were also incorporated into Bill C‑16, which will help better protect our children from the most heinous crimes. So far, all of my colleagues agree with these measures. We are also delighted that the calls of our justice critic to automatically have the murder of an intimate partner deemed a first-degree murder have been heard. This is important. This bill has made progress. We have succeeded in getting essential measures included in it. Finally, of course, we had a discussions and not all of the Conservatives’ proposals were picked up, even despite the government’s tendency to legislate on Conservative policy ideas since taking office, but that is another story that I will leave for the Liberals to debate among themselves. Although the government unfortunately rejected the proposal to impose a mandatory minimum sentence of three years for all types of extortion, the inclusion of an aggravating factor in sextortion cases is a step in the right direction, albeit insufficient. For the benefit of people watching at home, “sextortion” consists of using intimate images or intimate knowledge of a person to blackmail them, make them talk or make them do anything else. We absolutely must put a stop to it, and Bill C‑16 does just that. Unfortunately, the Liberals are the Liberals. There had to be something in the bill to prevent us from passing it unanimously in the House. What is it this time? It is clause 63. Clause 63 allows judges to avoid imposing minimum sentences and to exercise their discretion in cases of violent and serious crimes. This runs completely counter to everything I have just said. Judges will now be able to decide, based on their own discretion, experience or the circumstances, that a minimum sentence of five years, for example, will be reduced to just two or three years. As a result, certain people who should remain in prison will be released more quickly. I urge my Liberal colleagues to think about that. I think that we are very close to an agreement and that we could get something done that is good, together. We could pass Bill C‑16 if the Liberals got rid of that section. We would all agree. We all agree on the measures in Bill C‑16, but we do not want the Liberals to do what they have been doing for 11 years, that is, making life easier for criminals and making these crimes even more common. It is not that there are more criminals; it is that criminals are committing an increasing number of crimes because they are increasingly unafraid of justice. That is a fact. To give the Liberals time to reflect on this issue, to give them time to think about it and perhaps come back tomorrow with a clear proposal, I move: That the House do now adjourn.

Oral Questions ·

The Economy

“Canada has lost 45,000 workers this year, the economy is shrinking, and the budget watchdog says the government will fail to meet its spending goal. I want the Prime Minister to admit our country is in a recession.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, here is another figure. There are 45,000 fewer Canadians in the workforce than at the beginning of the year. These facts speak for themselves. The Parliamentary Budget Officer just completely dismantled the economic narrative put forward by the Prime Minister and the minister opposite: We are facing lower growth, higher deficits and declining productivity, and we are the only G20 country that is in a recession. What is worse, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said that there is a 99% chance that the government will fail to meet its own fiscal anchor. The Liberal Prime Minister presents himself as a great economist. How would he describe a situation in which the economy is shrinking, Canadians are getting poorer and the government has no chance of meeting its anchor? Canadians call that a recession.