Rachael Thomas

“Canadians want to protect children online. But this bill does not say which social media platforms it covers. Those choices will be made later behind closed doors, not by elected members of Parliament. I want the member to explain how the government will decide which platforms are covered and which ones are not.”

“Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague outlined the concerns of his constituents. I imagine that most of them would be happy about the idea of having legislation that would protect their children online. I think the vast majority of Canadians, of course, want that. The question with the legislation, however, is, who would kids be protected from? Which platforms would be scoped in? Would Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and Snapchat be scoped in? The legislation does not actually state that. It says that is yet to be determined in the regulations that we can expect at some date in the future. These types of decisions would be made behind closed doors rather than by elected officials in the House. I am curious if the member could indicate how that would be determined. Which services would be scoped in, and which services would be allowed to continue to allow predatory practices with regard to our young people? Clearly, not all would be held accountable.”

“A private company is ready to ship 250,000 barrels of oil a day to world markets without government money. This would create jobs and help our economy. The only thing stopping it is the oil tanker ban. I want the government to remove this ban.”

“Mr. Speaker, Canada has the oil the world needs, the workers to produce it and the rail lines to get it to the Pacific. Strathcona Resources is ready to ship up to 250,000 barrels per day through Prince Rupert to global markets. This would mean more jobs, a stronger Canadian economy and more customers for our oil, and the best part is that no government subsidies are necessary. In fact, this is a company that is ready to bring in its own private dollars and make it happen. The only thing standing in the way is the Liberals’ tanker ban. Will they do the right thing, advocate for the well-being of Canadians and remove it?”

In response to a question from Bob Zimmer

“Social media platforms should be responsible for keeping users safe. This bill should hold them accountable directly, instead of leaving the rules to be decided later.”

“Mr. Speaker, certainly, the responsibility needs to rest with the platforms. This legislation, obviously, should outline a basis on which those platforms are held accountable, which is where we take some issue with the legislation because it leaves a lot up to regulation, which is to come later.”

• 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 Martin Champoux

“Social media platforms must be held accountable. We must pass laws that force them to be open about what they are doing to protect people and whether it works. If they break the rules, they must face consequences.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member might be pleased to find out that we may actually agree a little more than he thinks. At the end of the day, platforms need to be held accountable. That is not going to happen without us, as legislators, requiring something of them. That “something of them” has to include transparency. They must be transparent about the actions they are taking and the impact of those actions that are being taken. They must be transparent with regard to the things they are doing to mitigate risk and how effective those actions are. Furthermore, if platforms are found not to be in compliance with this legislation and the forthcoming regulations, then platforms need to be held accountable. Those measures do in fact need to be in place if we are going to generate change going forward.”

• 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 Kevin Lamoureux

“Social media platforms must be held accountable, and we do need a regulator. But the government has gotten past bills on this wrong. I have big questions about how much power this new commission will have, and I will examine it closely.”

“Mr. Speaker, Conservatives very much believe that platforms need to be held accountable. For too long, they have been left to exist according to their own rules. The government has been in power for 11 years. The Liberals had come to the table with several pieces of legislation before this that were turned down by the Canadian public because they got it wrong. I think that within Bill C-34, they have brought forward the commission as their answer to holding platforms accountable. There absolutely needs to be a body, a regulator, that brings about that accountability. In terms of the scope of authority given to that commission, I think there are big questions pertaining to Bill C-34. I look forward to diving deep into those.”

In response to a question from Bob Zimmer

“We must protect kids online, but we also must protect Canadians' privacy rights. We can do both. I want us to study this bill very carefully and fix it so it does both things right.”

“Mr. Speaker, I will comment on the last thing there, and that was with regard to the importance of protecting privacy while simultaneously protecting children. It can be done. That is where I would ask the members of the House to come with a surgical instrument to the legislation and to figure out exactly the best way forward. We do need to make sure that kids are kept safe within their online experience. We also need to make sure that the rights and freedoms and the privacy rights of Canadians are also upheld. In fact, the UN draws attention to this with regard to the rights of the child and making sure that those are maintained. I do look forward to further discussion on that.”

In response to a question from Gabriel Ste-Marie

“Australia banned kids under 16 from social media, but 70% of them stayed online anyway, and others moved to less safe sites. I want the committee to study this so we know if our bill will actually work.”

“Mr. Speaker, in Australia, there was legislation put in place that essentially banned anyone under the age of 16 from setting up or maintaining a social media account. Within their legislation, they outlined 10 specific social platforms. What ended up happening is that many young people just went to other platforms that were not regulated. Of course, there is an argument to be said that this actually drives young people into the dark web, which is potentially dangerous. There is another thing that happened in Australia. When the legislation was independently reviewed in terms of its effect or its impact, it was found that, three months after it was implemented, only 30% of youth had complied. In other words, 70% of youth accounts still existed and 70% of young people were still online within these social media platforms. There are questions there with regard to the efficacy of the legislation and whether it can work. I think that is one of the things we will be bringing to committee. What changes would be needed for the legislation to be successful?”

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“I am worried about this bill because of the new safety commission it creates. The bill allows just one person to run the commission and hold all its power. Legal experts say no other democratic country gives this much power to one group or person. We need to look at this much more carefully.”

“Mr. Speaker, I spent the summer speaking with Canadians from coast to coast with regards to this legislation and the concerns they carry. One of them, with regard to the safety commission, is the fact that there is this bureaucratic body that will be set up in order to determine the regulations that will guide our way forward concerning safety online for children. However, it is more than that. This commission is meant to exist with a minimum of five people but, according to the legislation, it can exist with as few as one person. One individual could have the ability to carry out all of the power that is vested in the commission. There are legal experts who have brought to our attention that this power is vested in no other body in any other democratic country in the world. That deserves careful consideration.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Children face serious dangers online, including predators, bullying, and harmful content. Big tech companies put profits ahead of safety and cannot be trusted to fix this themselves. I want this bill to go to a committee for a close study so we can fix its major flaws. Right now, it leaves out popular video games, threatens user privacy, and gives a new government board too much unchecked power. We need to hold tech companies accountable, protect privacy, and help parents protect their kids.”

“Mr. Speaker, there was a time when children spent their afternoons riding bikes around their neighbourhoods and families gathered around the dinner table and discussed their day. They caught up with friends after school, which, of course, meant meeting in person or picking up the landline, often tethered to the wall, and making a phone call. An embarrassing moment at school might become the talk of the playground the next day, but it would never follow a child home in the form of a viral video. While children have always faced dangers from strangers in the past, those encounters were more likely to happen in person, where a stranger would have to go through a school or a parent to access the child. Today’s reality is very different. Children can now be reached by strangers through a screen in the privacy of their own bedroom. An embarrassing moment can be recorded, shared and viewed by thousands of people within seconds, and harmful content can appear on a child’s screen without warning, while addictive algorithms are designed to keep young users scrolling long after they should have logged off. Today’s children face a set of challenges unlike any previous generation in this regard. It is important for us to underscore the seriousness and severity of those challenges. From an early age, children are exposed to digital devices, and they spend hours navigating online spaces, where the risks are not always apparent but often appear when it is too late. They face addictive algorithms designed to capture their attention, and they keep scrolling, often at the expense of sleep, physical activity and face-to-face interaction. They are exposed to harmful and inappropriate content, including material that can be disturbing, misleading or unsuitable for their age, and this happens without them even searching for it or wanting it. They face cyber-bullying and online harassment where degrading comments, humiliating images and personal information can spread rapidly and remain accessible long after they have logged off. The consequences can be serious and long-lasting, leading to anxiety, depression, low self-esteem and social isolation. The spread of humiliating content can also damage a child’s reputation or affect their academic performance, often leaving them feeling unsafe even in their own homes. They are also vulnerable to online predators who can use anonymity to privately message them, gain a child’s trust to manipulate them and exploit their vulnerability. The Canadian Centre for Child Protection reports that it receives over 100,000 reports every single month with regard to child exploitation. In fact, it is so grave that authorities simply cannot keep up. As children grow up online, they face growing concerns about privacy and mental health from the permanent circulation of personal images and the pressure of comparing themselves to the carefully curated and often half-false versions of other people’s lives. These are serious challenges for children that, of course, have lasting implications. These children are still developing the judgment and maturity that they need to recognize risks and protect themselves. Consider the case of Amanda Todd, a young British Columbia teenager whose story brought national and international attention to the dangers of online exploitation and cyber-bullying. At just 12 years old, Amanda Todd was targeted by an online predator operating from the Netherlands, thousands of kilometres away from her home in British Columbia. He persuaded her to expose herself on a webcam and saved the image for later. He used it to blackmail her, threatening to share it with her friends and family if she did not continue to do things for him. What followed was years of exploitation and harassment, online and off-line. Amanda died by suicide at the age of 15 due to this experience. Amanda’s story is a devastating reminder that the Internet has no borders. A predator thousands of kilometres away was able to reach a Canadian child, exploit her trust and inflict lasting harm without ever being physically present in her life. More recently, the tragedy in Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia, raised serious questions with regard to the role that artificial intelligence can play in the lives of young people, as well as the responsibility that technology companies have to protect the general public. On February 10, a shooting in Tumbler Ridge claimed the lives of eight people, including five students, and it forever altered the life of Maya, who has been left with life-altering injuries. This tragedy devastated families, it crushed a community, and it shook our entire country. In the months since, reports have emerged about the shooter’s interaction with an artificial intelligence chatbot before the attack. The company has confirmed that an account associated with the shooter had been flagged and closed months before the tragedy, but nothing further had been done. A platform’s inaction and negligence resulted in one of Canada’s very worst mass shootings. The reality is clear. Children are increasingly exposed to online risks, parents are struggling to keep up with rapidly evolving technology, and online platforms are failing to do enough to protect children and support families. Platform operators will often claim that they are adding safety features or tools for parents to use, but these are often buried in hard-to-find places and are too complicated for busy parents to be able to use. Sometimes parents are not tech-savvy enough, either. The truth of the matter is that the platforms’ first priority is not the protection of children but rather their commercialization and, of course, making a profit, often at the expense of the safety and well-being of Canada’s young people. Canadians and legislators are saying enough is enough. We want to move forward. We want to make a difference. Platforms must be held accountable because they cannot be trusted to regulate themselves. We have tried that for too long. As legislators, therefore, it is our responsibility to ensure that online platforms are held accountable for their actions and the impact of their products. We must put legislation in place that truly empowers parents by putting control in their hands rather than in the hands of big tech. I have heard from many parents who want legislation that reflects the concerns they face every day as they try to keep their children safe online. They want platforms to address harmful content and features that can negatively affect their children’s mental health and well-being, rather than designing online experiences that put that well-being at risk. They want their children to be able to enjoy the benefits of technology without sacrificing their confidence, their sleep or their mental health. They want to know that their children will not be exposed to sexually explicit material while browsing the internet. They want platform operators to take responsibility for preventing children from accessing this material, rather than leaving parents to discover and address the problem when it is too late. Parents want their children protected from online predators and from those who seek to manipulate, exploit or harm them. The non-consensual sharing of intimate images can have devastating consequences for children and their families. AI makes it easier than ever to create convincing yet fake intimate images of real people, putting children at great risk of humiliation, harassment and lasting harm. Parents rightly expect platforms to act swiftly to remove these images and take meaningful steps to prevent them from being created and shared in the first place. These are not unreasonable demands. They are the concerns of parents who love their children and deeply want to protect them. Parents are not asking the government to take over their role. Parents know their children better than any government official or any technology company ever could. Their judgment and their authority must be respected in whatever legislation is put forward. The role of government and online platforms should be to support parents, not replace them. That support must also come with safeguards for the privacy of children and their families. Furthermore, parents expect law enforcement agencies to have the necessary tools to investigate child exploitation and bring perpetrators to justice, all while upholding Canadians’ constitutional freedoms. Any legislation intended to keep kids safe and empower parents must address these concerns, which brings me to Bill C-34, the bill up for debate today. It has potential, but its success would depend on whether it would deliver meaningful protections for children and give parents the necessary support they need. Good intentions are not enough. We must look carefully at whether this bill’s stated intent would in fact be achieved. My colleagues and I have held dozens of town hall meetings across this country, and we have surveyed those in our communities. Canadian parents have a lot of questions about the bill. They want to know if the legislation would actually make the difference that they need. For example, the bill would require platforms to implement safe design features, but what that would really mean in practice is not transparent in the bill. How would the government ensure that recommendation algorithms, autoplay functions or notifications are designed with children’s well-being in mind? Much of the detail of the legislation is left until later. I have heard from parents who are concerned about the amount of time their children spend online and the difficulty of setting boundaries in an environment designed to keep them engaged. Imagine being a mother who wants her child to put their phone down to get a good night’s sleep and to focus on school. She can set rules at home, but she cannot control the algorithms that are being used to influence her child and where her child looks. There are no settings with regard to notifications and when to draw them back or to turn off the device during school hours. Many parents are asking about the regulations that are to be established after the bill is passed, and let us be honest, there are a lot of them that are to come later. They want to see real tools that would allow them as parents to set boundaries regarding who their children are connecting with, or to manage screen time and restrict inappropriate content. They want clear, accessible settings that work. There are also important questions about how this legislation proposes to restrict young people’s access to social media. If the government imposes a blanket social media ban for children under 16, what happens next? Young people tell me that they will find a workaround, and parents confirm that this is true. They know it. Many of these kids are smart. Australia applied a ban, and 70% of its youth are still plugged in, so what assurance do we have that Canada’s model would actually be more effective? Many parents are also concerned about age verification. Since these measures would apply to all social media users, regardless of age, Canadians want to know exactly how their identity would be verified. Would Canadians be asked to submit government-issued identification, biometric data or other sensitive personal information, and if so, what are the regulations that would guide that? What safeguards would ensure that this information is not retained, misused or exposed in a data breach? In my conversation with parents, video games come up constantly. Kids spend hours on platforms like Roblox and Minecraft, where grooming and exploitation happen regularly. Why does Bill C-34 focus heavily on social media feeds while leaving these major gaming environments entirely out? Other parents have pointed out that AI chatbots are now widely accessible. Dedicated platforms such as OpenAI offer chatbot services, while similar tools are increasingly available on social media platforms like Instagram. Over the summer, a doctor shared with me a very heartbreaking story. She told me about a patient of hers who suffered from severe bullying. Looking for help, the young girl asked an AI chatbot how to end her life by overdosing on iron pills. When she hesitated to swallow that many pills, the chatbot actually suggested an alternative way of being able to consume them. The girl did as the chatbot told her and ended up in the hospital. Fortunately, however, she was saved. This is alarming. A child who was already struggling, who needed support and compassion, turned to a chatbot for answers and received instructions that were meant to end her life. Bill C-34 introduces duties for chatbot services and automated systems, but how would the government ensure that these safeguards apply wherever children might turn for help within the AI system, whether through social media, independent chat apps or educational tools? Parents want to know the answers to these questions. Parents are also asking fair questions about the digital safety commission, which would be created under Bill C-34. Given the tremendous power that would be granted to the commission to act as rule-maker, investigator, enforcer and judge, what specific checks and balances does Bill C-34 include to ensure the new commission would not abuse its extensive power and would in fact respect the rights and freedoms of Canadians? These are important questions, because the details of the legislation would affect what Canadians could access online, how platforms would operate and how children’s safety would or would not be protected. When so much is left up to future decisions by a regulatory body to be made behind closed doors with no accountability, Canadians need clarity. They need clarity about the limits of the authority that would be given to this commission and the safeguards that would be given to make it work for us as Canadians. Protecting children online is not a partisan issue. Parents across Canada want to know that their children can use technology safely without being exposed to exploitation, dangerous content or preventable harm. Legislation must address these concerns in practical and effective ways. We must ensure that online platforms are held accountable for the design choices they make and the risks they create. We must give parents accessible and easy-to-use tools to protect their children. Parents want to be empowered. We must ensure that safeguards keep pace with emerging technologies, including artificial technology, and we must do all of this while protecting the privacy and constitutional rights of Canadians. This is what is required. It is a tall order, but I do believe it is possible. The government cannot simply tell parents that their children are safer because a bill has been passed. It must demonstrate that the measures introduced will actually work and will actually make a difference. To that end, Bill C-34 needs to be studied carefully with input from children, parents, doctors, child psychologists, law enforcement officials, technology and artificial intelligence specialists, civil liberty advocates and other witnesses who can help us understand the risks children face online and determine how best to address them. Protecting kids online is non-negotiable for Conservatives. It is a must, which is why we are thankful that the government is finally doing something. This is the Liberals’ third attempt after all. However, good intentions require sound mechanisms. We are focused on holding tech giants accountable and empowering parents, not expanding government bureaucracy. As the bill before us moves to committee, we will scrutinize its provisions to ensure that it delivers real protection, because we owe it to Canadian families to get this right.”

“This bill bans kids under 16 from social media, but only until companies meet rules that are not in the bill. I want the minister to explain what those rules will be, so parents know how their kids will be protected.”

“Mr. Speaker, one of the provisions in Bill C-34 is that those under the age of 16 would not be able to set up or maintain social media accounts. However, that provision is only in place temporarily until social media companies meet a set of guidelines that are yet to be determined. Those guidelines are not defined in the legislation. For the sake of parents who are seeking clarity on this, I am wondering if the minister would care to expose what those guidelines might be in order to make sure that kids are in fact kept safe once those accounts once again become available to them.”

In response to a question from Michael Cooper

“Canadians pay more for gas than Americans and the rest of the world. This is because of our own government's policies, not world events. The government should lower gas prices by cutting carbon taxes and other fuel taxes.”

“Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is correct. Right now, we know that in Canada, we are paying approximately 24¢ more per litre than people are paying in the United States of America. We know it is 31¢ more than the world average. That being the case, it is a proof point that would suggest that this is not due to world economic factors, but rather domestic policy. Those domestic policies can be impacted and should be impacted by the government. It is its responsibility to act in the interest of the Canadian people and greater affordability. To that end, it would be like taking off the industrial carbon tax, the fuel surcharge tax and the so-called clean standard tax that is applied to fuel, and making sure that we have reserves. There is so much that can be done domestically to assist.”

• 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 Kevin Lamoureux

“Canadians are worried about the high cost of living. They do not want more government programs that hand out cash. They want policies that fix the economy, create jobs, and raise their pay. People want to earn enough to take care of their own families.”

“Mr. Speaker, Canadians are very concerned about affordability. They are very concerned about the cost of goods at the grocery store. They are not asking for a government program that would dole out cash in order to assist them for a short period of time. What Canadians are asking for is systemic. It is in that very structure that holds up our economy where they want to see change brought, because it is those types of policy changes that would help get infrastructure built. It is those types of changes that would help create jobs and increase people’s paycheques. When people are able to exist in that type of space, they are able to afford a life for themselves. They do not want another government program. They do not want to struggle to pay their mortgage while the government feeds their kids at school. That is not what they are asking for. They are asking for the government to put policies in place that allow them to stand on their own two feet and take care of their family.”

“I want the House to vote for our fuel relief plan. Taxing fuel drives up the cost of growing and moving food, which makes groceries too expensive for working families. Our plan lowers taxes on diesel and makes it easier to build energy projects.”

“Mr. Speaker, energy policy is not an abstract debate for academic journals or Ottawa boardrooms. In fact, it directly dictates whether a working family can afford their monthly bills. The Liberal government treats domestic energy developments as something to penalize, suppress or hold back. This is, at least, in action, because we know that with talk, it likes to promise a good game. Nevertheless, energy is the lifeblood of our supply chain, and penalizing energy does not reduce consumption. In fact, it simply drives up costs for the people who can least afford it, who are working families in this country. Our emergency fuel relief plan is designed to address this exact bottleneck. This is what we have put forward in the House today. By offering immediate tax relief on diesel and removing red tape for domestic energy infrastructure, we would directly attack the root cause of transportation costs and food inflation. We would take the burden off the back of Canadian producers, Canadian transporters and Canadian consumers, who ultimately end up paying that additional amount. This motion is about restoring economic common sense to our federal policies. It is about recognizing that we cannot tax the producer without punishing the consumer. We cannot drive up the cost of transportation without also driving up the price of bread, meat and potatoes at the supermarket. At its core, the motion the Conservatives have brought forward today has to do with everyday working people here in this great country. It is about the local farmer who reached out to my office because he sees the writing on the wall and the link between the cost of the fuel he is using to produce his crop, take it off the field and send it to market and the cost of food. There is a strong link. It is about the truck driver working gruelling hours to deliver essentials to our communities. It is about every single Canadian household struggling to make ends meet under 11 years of compounding Liberal policies that have mis-served this country. This includes the millions of Canadians, many of them working Canadians, who have had to line up at food banks in order to feed their families because the government has put policies in place that are punitive in nature. Canadians were told to judge the government by the prices at the grocery store. This is what the Prime Minister invited them to do when he was running for election. The judgment is in. The current system is failing working families. The cost at grocery stores is only going up, not down. It is time to bring down fuel prices. It is time to lower the cost of doing business. It is time to give Canadian families the relief they so desperately need and deserve. The Conservatives have put forward a legitimate, common-sense plan that will serve Canada well by tackling the root problems Canadians face. I urge every member in the House to vote yes to the motion that has been presented to them today. Stand on the side of Canadians. Vote with us.”

“I want the House to pass our plan to lower diesel costs. High diesel prices make groceries and other goods too expensive because farms, trucks, and trains all run on diesel. Our plan cuts federal taxes on diesel and helps Canada produce more fuel.”

“Mr. Speaker, when a parent stands in the checkout aisle of a local grocery store looking at the total that they can barely afford, they are not thinking about macroeconomics or global supply chain logistics. No, that is not what crosses their mind. Instead, they are looking at the price tag of a carton of milk, a loaf of bread or a bag of apples, the things that sustain their families day to day. They ask the question, “How did life become so expensive, especially in a place like Canada where we have so many resources at our disposal?” The Prime Minister once told the Canadian public that he should be judged by the prices at the grocery store. Let us do that. In fact, Canadians are judging him every single day they tap their card in order to pay for those essentials that they need, and they are watching as those prices continue to go up. The cost of everyday life is out of control, and Canadians are recognizing that. They do not need me to tell them, they do not need their member of Parliament to tell them and they do not need an economist to tell them. They experience it each and every day. Every single meal on a family’s dinner table starts on a farm. That is what needs to be understood in this conversation. It travels down a highway and then eventually makes its way to a grocery store. All of this is done on the back of a transportation truck, which of course requires fuel. That fuel is diesel. When the government drives up the price of diesel, it drives up the cost of living for every single mother, father, senior and young person across this country, no matter where they live or what type of lifestyle they enjoy. This is why Conservatives are bringing forward a smart, common-sense plan to save Canadians money. This plan is called the emergency fuel relief plan. While this plan might focus on diesel, it is in fact an affordability measure. It is actually a plan that puts the Canadian people squarely at the centre of it. A local farmer recently called me in order to express his concern over the increasing cost of diesel, which he relies on in order to put his crop in the ground and then take that crop back off. Now, the Liberal government consistently fails to understand the point he wished to make. It was that when the cost of fuel goes up, the cost of food goes up. It is actually that simple. He is right that this is the harsh reality that we face day in and day out. This is the harsh reality that Canadians face when they go to buy that bag of apples, that loaf of bread or that carton of milk. Many Canadians do not drive diesel trucks, and they do not sit behind the wheel of a large tractor or a combine. However, they understand the price on a grocery bill, and they understand the transportation that it takes in order to make its way to the shelf. Canadians are paying every step of the way because of domestic policy. Let us consider the direct supply chain that brings food and goods to our Canadian homes. Diesel powers the tractors that prepare the soil, plant the crops and harvest our food. Diesel powers the trucks that transport that fresh produce and livestock to our processing facilities and our grocery stores. Diesel powers the trains and the heavy equipment that move raw materials and keep the gears of our entire national economy moving forward. When the cost of diesel goes up, the cost of doing business also goes up. When the cost of business goes up, businesses cannot help but pass that on to the consumer, the mom, the dad, the young person who is simply going to buy groceries. Diesel prices in Canada are approximately 24¢ more per litre than in the United States of America and 31¢ a litre higher than the world average. That figure should concern every single Canadian. How can a country as rich in resources as ours be placed at such a severe disadvantage? Canada has the fourth-largest oil reserves in the world, yet our people are paying more for diesel than almost anyone else. How can that be? After 11 years of the Liberal government, the answer is clear. Federal policies such as their antidevelopment bills, Bill C-48 and Bill C-69, have systematically delayed major energy projects while piling on costs through the industrial carbon tax, the GST on fuel and other repeated tax hikes. When Ottawa penalizes domestic energy, it acts as an invisible tax on every single consumer purchase that takes place. This is why the Conservative motion puts forward a concrete four-point plan to deliver immediate savings for Canadians and guarantees that our energy independence only grows. Our plan is, firstly, to provide emergency prepermitting and tax relief for critical diesel infrastructure because we must fast-track and support the construction of refineries, pipelines, rail and storage capacity so that Canadian workers can refine Canadian oil right here at home. Secondly, we would eliminate all federal taxes on diesel consumption in order to save folks money at the pump. Thirdly, we would permanently eliminate taxes on diesel production because we must permanently scrap those federal taxes, including the industrial carbon tax, in order to take that burden off producers, truckers, farmers and, ultimately, the consumers at the grocery store. Fourthly, we must boost Canadian fuel production to one million barrels per day because we must take care of our own. I understand that this is an ambitious goal, but we must pursue it.”

• Echo ×25

  A repeated line

  “After 11 years of the Liberal government.”

  Said 25 times by 19 members since April 30.

  Every time it was said →