John Brassard

Madam Speaker, I have been here long enough, coming up to 11 years now, to remember the Liberals' talking about the Conservative proposal of removing the excise tax on fuel. They accused Conservatives of spreading disinformation and said that it in fact would have a limited effect on affordability, yet here we are with the finance minister's doing this today. The minister talked about swift and concrete action. Well, in April 2024, the Leader of the Opposition put forward an opposition motion to save families $670 by removing the tax on gas. Again, on April 15, 2026, the hon. member for Calgary East proposed another motion. Then, on May 27, 2026, the member for Richmond—Arthabaska—des-Sources proposed another motion to remove the tax on gas. In each and every case of those opposition motions, because Conservatives were ahead of the curve and saw the affordability crisis impacting Canadians at that time, it would have provided real relief, but instead the Liberals accused us of disinformation. In every case, the Liberals voted against it, including the Minister of Finance. Why has there been the change?

Madam Speaker, I am thrilled to be standing here today to talk about this bill, which would continue the lowering of the excise tax on fuel until January. Over the summer, I listened to my constituents and many of the business owners who have had to deal with the unjustified tariff war that is going on right now, which was started by the American administration. This type of relief and the continuation of this type of relief are welcomed. It was Ann Landers, the famous columnist, who once said, “People of integrity expect to be believed,” and when they are not, “time [will] prove them right.” The finance minister's introduction of this bill has proven that Conservatives have acted with integrity on this issue and have worked hard for many years to save people money. We see this as a welcome temporary relief that perhaps does not go far enough, but who can argue against saving people money? Certainly, the Conservatives have been arguing this for years. Much of what Canada is facing, our citizens are facing and our businesses are facing, if we are honest about it, has been a self-inflicted wound of failed economic policies, policies that have not improved the lives of Canadians and have not saved them money. In fact, it has cost them a tremendous amount of money over the years, especially over the last 11 years, and we are seeing that continue. A lot of these failed policies were implemented long before Donald Trump became the President of the United States. It is Canadian businesses, Canadian families and Canadian workers in all sectors, like the energy sector and the interprovincial sectors, who are paying the price. What we have seen over these years is Canadians walk into the grocery store, especially seniors and single moms, who are those who can least afford it, look at the prices and, sadly, have to put many items back on the shelf. We are seeing a nutrition problem, and a food security problem, that is rampant in this country. I know that because many of the calls that I take in my constituency office are literally about walking people back from the ledge because they cannot afford their rent, their groceries and the necessities of life. For many years, Conservatives have been arguing for the removal of the excise fuel tax, the carbon tax and other taxes, because there is a cascading effect across the supply chain that impacts the prices in stores. When the producers, the wholesalers and the transporters have to pay this type of tax, it has an impact on people. It is only now, after 11 years, that the Liberal government is starting to understand what we understood years ago, which is that many of these failed economic policies, including these policies of increased taxation, are having that kind of effect on people. I stand here today in support of this legislation, but I also remind the House, and I remind you, Madam Speaker, as I know you are aware of this, that there have been several occasions when Conservatives have proposed reducing the tax on fuel, whether it is the excise fuel tax, the industrial fuel tax or other taxes. Each time we proposed those through opposition day motions, every single member of the Liberal government voted against it. Every member on that side voted against. There have been three occasions. This started in 2024 when the Leader of the Opposition proposed that we remove fuel taxes to save people money. At that time, the Conservatives were well ahead of the curve. We were not listening to polls. We were listening to our constituents about the impact that gas taxes were having on them, not just on the price they were paying at the pumps, but also on the price they were paying at the grocery stores and the price they were paying on all goods across the economy.At that time, in 2024, we proposed removing the tax on gas. The Leader of the Opposition did that. What did the Liberals do? They voted against it. Then, when Parliament resumed on April 15, 2026, the member for Calgary East proposed a motion, which states: That... (i) gas prices have soared upwards, (ii) Canadians now pay almost 20 per cent more at the pumps than Americans due to high Liberal taxes, the House call on the government to adopt the Conservative plan to save Canadians 25 cents-a-litre by removing federal taxes on gas and diesel— Diesel is in a whole other stratosphere with respect to pricing and how it is impacting producers, especially our farming communities. I will continue with the motion from back then in April: (a) removing the Fuel Excise Tax for the remainder of 2026, which costs Canadians 10 cents-a-litre; Every single Liberal voted against that motion. In fact, if I recall the debate back then, the Liberals who were standing up that day were accusing the Conservatives of spreading misinformation, of lying to Canadians about the savings they would have on removing the excise fuel tax, yet here we are today with government legislation that is proposing exactly what we proposed years ago, which could have started saving Canadians money. Then, on May 27, 2026, the member for Richmond—Arthabaska—des-Sources in Quebec talked about 13% higher gas prices in Canada than the United States, which equates to 22¢ more on average per litre. Again, every single Liberal member voted against that. People of integrity expect to be believed. When they are not, time will prove them right, and time is proving the Conservatives right on this and many issues, including the carbon tax and any other pieces of legislation that were Conservative ideas that the government is now implementing. I subscribe to the politics that, if it is a good idea, it does not matter whether it is a Liberal idea, a Conservative idea, an NDP idea or a Green idea. If it is a good idea that benefits Canadians, Canadian families and Canadian businesses, then it should be supported. Every single one of those opposition motions that we put forward was a good idea to save Canadian families and Canadian businesses money, but in every circumstance, the Liberals voted against it. All of a sudden, here we are today, and it is a good idea. We have a constitutional obligation as an opposition to question the government. Our constitutional obligation is to hold the government to account. It is to call into question decisions that are being made, legislation, regulatory reform or any other thing that it proposes. That is our constitutional obligation, and we uphold that obligation with great respect and great integrity. It is also our obligation to propose solutions to the government when things are not working, when things are failing with respect to legislation, regulation or other policies. That is precisely what we did. I know the government House leader, yesterday, stood up and accused Conservatives of proposing things that were un-Canadian. The government would rather have an audience than an opposition. These were good ideas that were being proposed years ago, and we will continue to propose ideas that are going to help Canadians. Let me end with something I received from a constituent. As the House knows, we have the ability to communicate all the time through various means, including sending out mailers. I got this one over the summer. Chris from Innisfil said, “The gas tax needs to be much lower”, which would improve affordability and automatically lower prices. Today, as I stand here, I say to Chris that I am sorry that we could not have done this earlier. We tried, as an opposition, to make life more affordable and to save him money. On this day, we will do that. We are going to support the government on this. It does not go far enough. We believe that it should extend at least to Canada Day in 2027, because the economic crisis, the food insecurity crisis and the affordability crisis that families are facing are real and are going to continue under the Liberal government.

Madam Speaker, there is nothing to revisit. The government passed it. It is implemented. I have not heard much in my riding about children actually benefiting from it. Nobody is reaching out to me to say that it is the greatest program in the world. We will support things that benefit Canadians, Canadian families, Canadian workers and Canadian businesses, and we will support the things that save them money during the great economic crisis that is going on right now. Again, this is a self-inflicted wound that started long before Donald Trump became the President of the United States. We will vigorously oppose, upholding our constitutional obligation, things that do not help Canadian workers, Canadian families and Canadian businesses, and the history of the Liberal government is that there are not many things that have worked properly except for well-connected insiders.

Madam Speaker, first, I want to say that I am sorry that I did not get any questions from my colleague from Mirabel. However, I will respond to the hon. member's question. I think I spoke about it. I do not think the Liberals, in their ideology, subscribe to the concept that it does not matter who proposes an idea, but if it is good for Canadian workers and Canadian businesses, then maybe they should adopt it. This could have been saving people money, not just all summer, but back in 2024, when we first proposed the removal of the excise fuel tax. We saw, as Conservatives, and we were hearing it from our constituents back then, that the tax was having a profound impact, not just on them personally, but as a cascading effect across the economy. The only thing that I can say to the hon. member is that, if it is not a Liberal idea, then it is a bad idea, and that is what we have been dealing with in this place. It is time that we stopped this and started thinking about Canadians, rather than our political fortunes in this place.

Madam Speaker, that is a great question. The Prime Minister has proven himself to plagiarize. It is a well-documented fact that he has plagiarized many things, so it is no surprise to me, as a Conservative, that he is plagiarizing our platform, because our platform is what Canadians needed. Unfortunately, they did not vote for it, but we will continue to propose solutions that make lives better.

Mr. Speaker, lower food costs and lower rent so their children do not have to live with their 80-year-old grandmother, says S from Innisfil. This is just one of thousands of responses I received over the summer about how these past 11 years of failed economic policies have impacted average Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet. However, if we ask the finance minister or one of the Prime Minister's well-connected business buddies, times have never been better, while Canadian families and businesses are struggling just to make ends meet. Conservatives are proposing to eliminate the industrial carbon tax to help Canadians and businesses save money. Will the Liberals adopt our plan?

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing but talk and little action. Michelle from Barrie wrote to me and said that she is a single person, making barely $60,000 a year, having to put a roof over her head and needing a car to drive to work, but, more importantly, she needs to eat. She said she has just received her groceries benefit: $16.75. She asks how that is supposed to support paying for more groceries. According to the finance minister, Michelle has never had it so good, but the truth is that the only ones doing well are the well-connected club of Liberal insiders and business buddies of the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister tell Michelle when she can expect to do as well as his corporate buddies or to at least pay for the necessities of life?

Madam Speaker, I was at the committee meeting the day the Privacy Commissioner was there, along with other witnesses representing social media platforms. Before the meeting, all the witnesses indicated that they had submitted their briefs to the committee. However, members were not able to see them because they had not received them. Did the member not find it frustrating that we did not receive the briefs before the meeting, not only from the Privacy Commissioner but also from the other witnesses?

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for what I thought was a very thoughtful speech on a very concerning bill. It is not just the NDP or Conservatives who are concerned, but civil liberty organizations and other stakeholders. The Privacy Commissioner himself has significant concerns about the privacy aspects of this legislation. Earlier today, Conservatives moved an amendment to separate the bill into Bill C‑22A and Bill C‑22B. By doing that, we could work with and allow the police the tools they need for investigations of serious crimes and other matters, but it would also put on pause the ultimate concern of this bill, which is part 2, and allow the Privacy Commissioner and others to come back in further reflection on this bill. Does the hon. member agree with the amendment that we put forward?

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Oshawa does not even know this yet, but there is breaking news that the Liberal government is actually standing down on some of the contentious parts of the bill, namely the retention of records. They are talking about reducing it from one year to six months now. There are other things they are talking about with respect to adjusting this piece of legislation. Again, like everything else they do, is this not an admission of failure that the bill is completely flawed?

Madam Speaker, the way the Liberals are acting tonight, it is almost like the arsonist who sets a house on fire and then we expect him to put the fire out. It is almost the same thing. I want to go back to the issue of the Privacy Commissioner. One of the things that I saw, and the member was there when I was there, was that the briefs that were submitted to the committee did not arrive and were not sent to committee members until the day they were sitting around the table to question the Privacy Commissioner and other witnesses who had submitted briefs, eight days later. I know the hon. member brought this up. He was quite concerned, as were other members sitting around that table, including the Bloc members. How much of an impact did not having those briefs have on the member's ability, as a member of this committee, to scrutinize this piece of legislation?

Mr. Speaker, this goes back to April 2025, when Canadians elected a minority government to provide oversight, accountability and transparency so that the opposition parties could hold them to account and provide that oversight. What we have seen since this manufactured, transactional majority is that this heavy-handed hammer has come down on this place, which has limited all other parties' ability, as an opposition, to do that. I am wondering if the hon. member would speak to the impact this is having, not only on our parliamentary democracy, but on the decline of democracy in general.

Mr. Speaker, if we talk to anyone on the street or to businesses suffering from 11 years of failed Liberal policies, they will tell us that Canada is in a recession, no matter how the Liberals or the media try to spin it, and that things are not getting any better. Families, seniors and young people are anxious about their finances and their future. The worst of all scenarios have crept into the minds of Canadian business: doubt and uncertainty. The Liberal Prime Minister has the distinction of walking into the G7 meetings as the only leader to push their country into recession. Will he rethink his costly policies, which have caused this recession?

Mr. Speaker, Canada's decline did not start last April. It was catalyzed six years ago, when the current Prime Minister was Trudeau's economic adviser. The Prime Minister's fingerprints are all over the failed policies that have caused Canada to be the only G7 country in a recession. While well‑connected Liberals and corporate buddies are doing well, the crumbs the Liberals feed to families, seniors and young people cannot mask the fact that 60% of Canadians feel anxious about their finances, 40% are losing sleep, 38% have food insecurity and 2.2 million Canadians visited food banks last year. Does that sound like everything is working well?

Mr. Speaker, I am really glad that the hon. member brought up the Snowbirds, because this past weekend, the Barrie Airshow was held. There were 150,000 people who attended the air show. I was fortunate that I had the member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan come to Barrie, because he has been leading the fight to keep the Snowbirds flying. He heard from a lot of people how disappointed they were that the Snowbirds have actually been cancelled. The main concern is that this five-year hiatus may turn to six years, to 10 years and then to their never returning. I am wondering what the hon. member would do to keep the Snowbirds flying.

Mr. Speaker, $200 million is what Liberals gave a near-bankrupt company of well-connected Liberal insiders and family members for now three failed launches from a concrete slab spaceport. While Canadians pay for the most expensive science fair project in history, the only successful thing taking off is the bank accounts of Liberal insiders such as Sasha Jacob, who turned worthless shares of the company into a $1.8-million personal windfall after Liberals lit the fuse. Will the Prime Minister just admit that this was all about greasing the palms of well-connected Liberal insiders?