“We will vote against the Conservative motion because it will make things worse. Pausing our fuel tax for four months already costs 2.4 billion dollars. The Conservatives have not explained how much their plan costs or how they will pay for it.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think I can safely say that, no, we will not vote for the Conservative motion. In fact, the motion would make things far worse. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Carlos Leitão: Yes, it would. Yes, it would. Let me just say this, Mr. Speaker, if I may. Our current suspension of the federal excise tax for four months, at 10¢ a litre, will cost $2.4 billion. How much would the Conservative motion cost? How would they fund it?”

“Fewer people from Manitoba are driving to the United States. Gas prices in Minnesota are almost the same as here. People are not driving across the border just to buy gas.”

“Mr. Speaker, we know the number of visits from Manitoba to the United States has actually decreased. The member made reference to the people in his constituency who are travelling to the United States in order to gas up. A quick search finds that the price of gas in Minnesota is about $1.55 a litre. That is probably within two cents or three cents of what I paid over the weekend. Does the member really believe there is a flood of people going from his constituency and travelling to Minneapolis in order to get gas?”

“The member is a parliamentary secretary, not the deputy House leader. The Opposition Leader should get his title right.”

“Mr. Speaker, he is the parliamentary secretary, not the deputy House leader. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition can get the— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”

“Gas prices were lower in 2014 because the price of crude oil dropped by almost half that year. I want to know if the Leader of the Opposition knows that.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am not even going to go to the money-printing side because that could take a few minutes. That is a whole different discussion. For example, I would never say I would fire the governor of the central bank. As a country, we do not say those things. The very specific question I have is this. In 2014, yes, the crude oil price started the year at $100 a barrel, but it finished at $55 a barrel. There was that sharp decline in oil prices throughout the year that explains the lower gasoline prices. Is the Leader of the Opposition aware of that?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  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 →

“Our government is taking action to make life more affordable for Canadians facing high costs from global conflicts and trade issues. We paused the gas tax for the summer, cut income taxes, increased grocery benefits, and lowered banking fees. I want the House to support our efforts.”

“Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Kingston and the Islands. I am very pleased to rise today to call attention to our government’s efforts to make life more affordable. Naturally, Canadians are living in a complex, unpredictable world. Unfortunately, in many ways, this world is also more expensive. In response, the government is staying focused on what it can control: building a strong Canadian economy, diversifying our foreign trade partners, ensuring responsible fiscal management and, of course, supporting Canadians. I am pleased that the opposition motion underscores that the government has taken action because, yes, we have taken action to help Canadians. We are working tirelessly to make life more affordable for them. Here is one very practical example. As we all know, ship traffic in the Strait of Hormuz has practically been at a standstill for several weeks. This has caused oil prices to spike, gas prices to soar and the price of other essential goods to increase not only here in Canada, but everywhere. Was it our government that started the war in Iran? Obviously, the answer is “no”. Did we take action to lower costs for Canadians? The answer is “yes”. Global conflicts and persistent supply disruptions in the Middle East are not things the government can control. What we can do, and what we are doing, is helping Canadians who are impacted by these conflicts. Since April 20, just over a month ago, the federal excise tax on gas has been suspended, and it will remain suspended until September 7. The suspension of this tax is expected to save Canadians up to an estimated $5.75 when filling up a 50-litre tank. It provides real savings for families, who will hopefully be able to travel across Canada this summer. It also lowers costs for truckers and businesses. It is expected that this measure will provide Canadians with over $2.4 billion in relief in 2026-27. By lowering the cost of gas and diesel at the pump, the government is taking meaningful action to support Canadians through these challenging times. At a cost of a little over $2 billion, we are doing it without putting the public purse at risk. I can give yet another example. Even before the conflict in the Strait of Hormuz, the historic rise in tariffs plunged the economies, businesses and workers of several countries into uncertainty. Canada was no exception. Did Canada cause the global trade disruptions that sent the cost of essential goods skyrocketing? Of course not. Did we take action? The answer is yes. Earlier this year, to help Canadian families make ends meet, we launched the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit. This benefit is based on the GST credit, as we all know, and provides increased support to more than 12 million low- and modest-income Canadians. Next Friday, June 5, these 12 million Canadians will receive a one-time supplement payment equal to 50% of this year’s annual GST credit. This measure alone will provide more than $3 billion in assistance to individuals and families in need. That is not all. Starting this July, low- and modest-income Canadians will receive higher quarterly payments. The benefit will be increased by 25% for five years, providing over $8 billion in additional support. In total, a family of four could receive up to almost $2,000 this year and approximately $1,400 per year over the next four years. That is real and meaningful support that will help cover the cost of groceries, bills and everyday expenses. However, that is not all. We also cut taxes for 22 million Canadians by reducing the lowest marginal personal income tax rate from 15% to 14%. This year, in 2026, that means savings of $420 per person or over $800 for a two-income family. We eliminated the GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes at or under $1 million, which is a big deal in my riding of University—Rosedale, and we lowered the GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes between $1 million and $1.5 million. We made the national school food program permanent to give 400,000 children access to healthy meals and to help their parents save $800 a year in groceries. We have also taken concrete steps to make the banking system fairer and, above all, more affordable for Canadians. Since March, consumers can no longer be charged more than $10 in fees when there are non-sufficient funds in their personal account to cover a payment. Financial institutions can no longer charge more than one NSF fee in a period of two business days for the same account. Furthermore, and this is important, no NSF fees may be charged when the account shortfall is under $10. We will be starting automatic federal benefits this year that will reach up to 5.5 million low-income Canadians by the 2028 tax year. This will ensure that millions of low-income individuals across Canada can receive the assistance they are entitled to. In addition, in the spring economic update, we announced our intention to reduce the Canada pension plan base contribution rate from nearly 10% to 9.5% effective January 1 of next year. Our government is focusing on what we can control, such as building a stronger Canadian economy and helping Canadians who are struggling every day because of the cost of living. We will continue to shift from reliance to resilience, and we are doing all of this while maintaining a strong fiscal position. According to the spring economic update, the projected deficits are lower than anticipated in the 2025 budget. Is Canada responsible for the upheaval in the global economy? No. Is the government taking action to mitigate the consequences? Yes. We are building Canada strong for all, and I urge the members of the House to support our efforts.”

• Echo ×29

  A repeated line

  “We introduced the Canada groceries and essentials benefit.”

  Said 29 times by 19 members since April 23.

  Every time it was said →

“We need to cut taxes carefully and keep funding social programs. Programs like dental care and child benefits help Canadians and we must protect them.”

“Mr. Speaker, absolutely, we need to focus on what we can control. What we need to do is reduce taxes in ways that are responsible, and we need to also continue to invest in the critical social programs that matter to all Canadians. They certainly matter to my constituents and, I am sure, to the constituents of the members opposite. Whether they are the Canadian dental care plan, which is very important to the people in my riding who were not able to access dental services until this plan came into place, or the Canada child benefit, which benefits families with children who need it the most, these are the kinds of benefits we can control, and we need to continue to protect them for Canadians.”

• Echo ×3

  A repeated line

  “We need to focus on what we can control.”

  Said 3 times by 3 members since May 26.

  Every time it was said →

“We cannot control everything. It makes sense to use short-term measures for this crisis so we do not get stuck with long-term problems.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is true that there are many things that we cannot control. That is why it is also very responsible to take temporary measures to deal with the crisis that we are facing right now, without putting ourselves in a long‑term position that we cannot get out of.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 48 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“I want to know what my colleague's voters said during her election campaign about our plans to help people with the rising cost of living.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague on her excellent speech. I am very pleased that there is one more member of our caucus who cares deeply about our Canadian francophonie. I am very pleased to be able to serve with her. During her recent election campaign, what did she hear from her constituents about the importance of the measures that we are putting in place to help people cope with the rising cost of living? She put it very well when she said that we are focusing on what we can control, and that includes putting measures in place to help people. I would like to hear what her constituents told her about this.”

“People in my riding are struggling to afford life. They want a steady government that helps with their immediate needs without making big, permanent changes right now.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is true that during the by‑election, I spoke with many people in my riding who are deeply affected by the affordability crisis that we are facing here in Canada right now. I would say that people are generally very happy to have a responsible government that is trying to implement measures that meet their needs without making drastic policy changes at a time of real uncertainty. For people in my riding, this means having access to stable public services and having a government that responds to immediate needs without rolling out permanent policies. I believe that people see this as a very responsible approach.”

“Single moms and seniors in my riding say the government payments for kids and dental care help them afford to live. We must keep both programs.”

“Mr. Speaker, in my riding, I am hearing from single moms and seniors about the importance of maintaining the Canada child benefit and the Canadian dental care plan, which have been transformative for affordability for those two groups.”

“Cutting fuel taxes helps wealthy people more than poor people, because rich people use more energy. The Conservatives say this tax cut is for low-income Canadians, but that is not true. Our government created child care benefits, dental care, and school food programs that actually help people who need it. The Conservatives voted against all of them.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for University—Rosedale for sharing her time with me today to debate the opposition motion that we have before us. I think I will focus my 10 minutes primarily on the exchange that took place earlier between the member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley and the Leader of the Opposition. They had a really interesting exchange. The member had asked the Leader of the Opposition to talk about all that this would do for low-income Canadians and how it would benefit them more than anybody else. I could not quite wrap my head around where that question was even coming from, because the reality of the situation is that we know that people who are wealthier consume a lot more energy. I mean, they have bigger homes and drive bigger vehicles, and they have other recreational vehicles and toys that require fuel. This idea that the impact is going to be more substantial on low-income Canadians than on Canadians who are much more well off is just absolutely ludicrous to me. It does not make any sense, but it does fit perfectly into the narrative that Conservatives always try to paint. This takes me back to the Ronald Reagan Republicans and the Margaret Thatchers of the eighties and their trickle-down economics, where we were told not to worry, that if we give relief to the wealthy, that money will slowly trickle down to the folks who really need it. That is a Conservative myth that has never been proven. There is not a single data point that has actually proven that to be true. It is just what Conservatives like to get up here to say day after day. When I am sitting here, listening to the member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley and the Leader of the Opposition talk about how removing more tax off of fuel is somehow going to benefit the less fortunate in our society more than the ultrawealthy, I just think it is absolutely crazy to even make that claim. If we want to talk about what actually helps people who really need help, I will tell the House about some of the initiatives that the government has brought in. I ask the folks watching this from the gallery, or folks at home who might be tuning in to this, to consider that members of the Conservative Party of Canada have voted against every single one of these initiatives. When we introduced the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, Conservatives voted against it. This is money that is specifically targeted to go to the low-income Canadians who the member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley was talking about. Conservatives voted against cutting taxes for 22 million Canadians. These are initiatives that affected the lowest-income earners the most by removing the biggest amount of tax implication from them rather than anybody else. It is not appealing to the Conservatives because it does not fit the narrative that they can sell back to the base, those who they are really trying to impress, the ultrawealthy. By the way, that brings up something else. I want to applaud the Bloc for actually discussing this today. The Bloc raised the point on a couple of occasions that the Conservatives are talking about high oil and gas prices, but we have not heard them, in one breath, in one sentence or even in three words, talk about the fact that it is the oil and gas industry that is making massive record profits right now. I have not seen the Conservatives bringing in motions to talk about what we should do about that or how taxes should be impacting those particular companies. Of course not. They are never going to do that. That is their base. That is who they are always really trying to impress and please, unlike what was in the fake conversation I heard earlier between the member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley and the Leader of the Opposition about suddenly having an interest in helping the less fortunate in our communities. We also brought in a national school food program, and the Conservatives vilified it. They not only voted against it, but also got up in the House to talk about how it is a fake program that has not helped anybody. The member for York—Durham goes on his “Restore the North” tour, asking why we need to give food to children and saying what we really needed to do, all while making up these fake reasons why it was required, while of course neglecting the fact that we were the last of the G7 countries to bring in a national school food program. National food programs have been going on for decades and decades. Of course, the Conservatives will take every opportunity to take every single issue and politicize it. They cannot even resist the temptation of politicizing putting food into children’s bellies in elementary school. They politicize all of it. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Hon. Mark Gerretsen: No, I am not politicizing it. Mr. Speaker, I am listening to these guys heckle right now, and I will respond to that heckle. I stood up here for days, for years, asking why we were the last of the G7 countries to do this and why we had not done it yet. I worked internally in my caucus to push the minister of finance at the time, and I presented petition after petition from my community on this issue, so no, I am not going to jump onto an issue on a case-by-case basis for three minutes so that I can politicize it like the Conservatives do. That would be just like what I have to listen to in the House when they suddenly become the champions of those with low incomes in our society. We introduced automatic federal benefits in our budget, something the Conservatives voted against. Now low-income Canadians whose tax returns are very simple can benefit from it being an automatic process so they immediately get the tax refund. They do not need an accountant or to go to a third-party company and pay for it. That is helping low-income Canadians. Conservatives are not helping when they are getting up and saying that, if we reduce the gas tax even more than we have already, it would help low-income Canadians more than the wealthy Canadians, who obviously consume way more fuel than low-income Canadians. We expanded and entrenched the Canada child benefit. If members want one clear example of a difference in policy between the Liberals and Conservatives, they need look no further than the Canada child benefit. All they have to do is compare two very easy policies, one presented by the Conservatives under Stephen Harper and one presented by the Liberals. The goal was ultimately the same, which was to give money to help support children. The key difference between the two is that Stephen Harper’s universal child care benefit gave a cheque for every single child. If a person had three kids, they got three times the individual child amount. It did not matter whether they were making $20,000 a year or $2 million a year. Everybody got the exact same cheque. When we came along we said that it might make more sense to not give cheques to millionaires, but instead take that money and give more to low-income Canadians, who would use the money right away and inject it right back into our economy. If Canadians want just one example of a fundamental difference in the philosophy behind the policies of the Liberals and the Conservatives, all they need to do is look at the two different child care benefits that were introduced under the two different governments. That tells them everything they need to know about the differences between the Liberals and Conservatives. Of course, there is the $10-a-day child care benefit that we have been working with the provinces on. There is also the Canada dental plan that the member for Regina—Lewvan did not vote in favour of. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Hon. Mark Gerretsen: Mr. Speaker, the member is saying that, no, he did not vote in favour of it. I am sure I could get the Minister of Health to tell me how many recipients there have been in his riding. The member is saying that they do not need it. Why would they not need it? We are one of the wealthiest countries in the world, and the member for Regina—Lewvan does not want to provide dental care to some of the most vulnerable people in our communities. This is everything anyone needs to understand the difference between the two parties. I want to thank him for speaking up there. The Canada disability benefit is another one, as well as the $500 Canada housing benefit top-up for low-income renters. These are all initiatives that the government has brought forward to make the lives of the most vulnerable Canadians better. Every single one of these, the Conservatives voted against.”

• Echo ×29

  A repeated line

  “We introduced the Canada groceries and essentials benefit.”

  Said 29 times by 19 members since April 23.

  Every time it was said →

“I will vote against this motion. It helps the richest people who use the most fuel.”

“Mr. Speaker, it would be a lot easier for me to take that question seriously if the member did not belong to a political party that, as I demonstrated in the example I just gave, handed checks to millionaires. Now I am supposed to suddenly expect its members to care about the affordability challenges many Canadians have. I am very proud of the work the government has done. Could we do things differently? Could we do things better? Is there always an opportunity to improve? Absolutely, there always is. I will always do that, but will I get up in the House and vote for this motion, which would benefit the ultrawealthy the most, the people who consume the most amount of fuel? No, I will not.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 36 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 →

“The member got my words wrong. I did not say this plan helps only the richest people. The Conservatives claim it helps low-income Canadians the most, but I disagree. It helps the richest people more.”

“Mr. Speaker, I did not say what he said. I did not say that this would benefit only the ultrawealthy. What I was doing, and I said it many times, was talking about the exchange between the member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley and the Leader of the Opposition, who claimed that this would be more of a benefit for low-income Canadians. My argument is, no, it is not more of a benefit for them. What the Conservatives are proposing is more of a benefit for the ultrawealthy.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 46 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“The Conservatives say they want to help people, but they voted against my bill for a school food program. How does voting against food for students help the kids in the member's riding?”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about helping others, helping Canadians and helping people in his riding. The Conservatives are saying that they are standing up for people, but when I presented a PMB in this room to create a school food program, the Conservatives voted against it. Can my colleague tell me how this helps kids in schools in his riding? I know he visited some of them, just like I did in my riding.”

“Canada was the last G7 country to get a national school food program. Feeding kids at school helps them learn and breaks down stereotypes, but the Conservatives still will not support it. They should visit the food program in my riding to see how well it works.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for bringing forward that very important private member’s bill, which did eventually get the support of the House without any Conservative support. The member would know this having studied the issue, but Canada was the last of the G7 countries to get a national school food program. Even the United States had a national school food program before Canada. The reality of this situation is that we cannot even get Conservatives to recognize that maybe it is a good idea to make sure that kids are properly nourished when they start a day in school. By the way, when we have kids who are participating and receiving food in schools, we immediately start to see stereotypes break down around the haves and the have-nots, which is why programs like this are so important. The Conservatives will use them as opportunities to try to suggest that these programs are nothing other than government bureaucracy. I invite them to come to my riding, talk to the Food Sharing Project and see the work that it is doing on the ground with that government support to get food into the hands and bellies of children.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 43 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“The member cannot lecture me about helping people. He voted against all these programs, including free school food and money for people with disabilities.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member voted against it. He votes against every single one of these programs that I talked about. He voted against a national school food program. He voted against the disability benefit. He voted against all of this. How am I supposed to take him seriously when he gets up in the House and tries to lecture me on supporting Canadians?”

“Conservatives say they care about high costs, but they vote against programs that help with groceries and feed children in schools. I want the member to explain this.”

“Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could acknowledge the hypocrisy we see coming from the Conservative Party. On the one hand, Conservatives talk about the issue of affordability, yet when the government proposes initiatives like the Canada groceries and essentials benefit program, the Conservatives vote against it. When it comes to the national school food program, which, as has been pointed out by the government whip, is feeding hundreds of thousands of young children, the Conservatives vote against it. There are a number of measures that the government has taken to deal with the issue of affordability because we understand the need. However, the Conservatives continue to vote against those measures. Why the hypocrisy?”

“There is a mistake in our tax bill. It paused the fuel tax on most plane fuels, but left out leaded aviation gas by accident. We plan to fix the bill soon so that tax pause applies to all aviation fuels.”

“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding Bill C-30, the spring economic update 2026 implementation act. I would like to notify the House of a technical issue in clause 11. That clause of Bill C-30 proposes amendments to temporarily set the federal fuel excise tax rate to zero for gasoline, unleaded aviation gasoline, diesel and aviation fuel. A reference to leaded aviation gasoline was, however, not included in the proposed amendments in that clause. As announced by the Prime Minister on April 14, 2026, the temporary suspension of the federal fuel excise tax is intended to apply to aviation fuels generally during the relief period. Therefore, it is the government’s intention that the proposed amendments apply for all fuels used in the aviation industry, including leaded aviation gasoline. In response, the government intends to propose an amendment to Bill C-30 at the earliest opportunity, to remedy this issue and to ensure that the fuel tax relief applies to leaded aviation gasoline.”