Translate Politics Parliament in plain language.

Business of Supply

This was a Conservative opposition day motion asking the government to remove all federal taxes on gasoline and diesel for the rest of the year and to cancel the clean fuel standard, which Conservatives presented as relief for households facing high costs of living. Conservatives argued that food bank use, grocery prices, gas prices, and housing costs have made life unaffordable, and that young people in particular feel they can no longer afford a home; they also disputed the suggestion that clean fuel regulations are income for farmers, calling them a cost passed on to consumers. Liberals agreed affordability is a concern but pointed to their own measures, including child care, dental care, a groceries and essentials benefit, and the removal of the consumer carbon price, and asked why Conservatives voted against those programs; one Liberal defended the clean fuel regulations as generating significant revenue for Prairie canola farmers. The Bloc Québécois did not support the motion, arguing that cutting gas taxes and increasing oil production would harm the environment and that the tax cut would cost billions while saving the poorest families little, saying investment in clean energy would be a better response.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text

3 statements

Ginette Petitpas Taylor

Liberal
“I agree that high costs are a problem for people. Our government has made life more affordable by helping with child care and dental care. How does the member explain to his voters why he voted against those programs?”

  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 44 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

Mr. Speaker, one thing that I would agree with my colleague on is the issue of affordability. Over the past two weeks, I have been in my riding and have met with many of my constituents, and affordability continues to be an area of concern. What does the member say to his constituents when he tells them that he voted against the dental care program, the child care program and many of the affordability measures that we have brought forward? I wonder if he could just elaborate on the response that he gives them, because this side of the House has brought forward many measures to make sure that life is more affordable for Canadians. Again, that continues to be our number one priority, and that is not the message I seem to get from the other side of the House.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B– View analysis

Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal
“We created programs to help people buy food and cut taxes on gas to make life more affordable. The Conservatives say they care about high costs, but they always vote against our help. Why do they do that?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Conservative after Conservative has stood up and talked about the issue of affordability. We have brought forward affordability measures, such as the groceries and essentials benefit for Canadians, which is coming out in June. There will be substantial amounts of money for the 11 million Canadians who will benefit by it. The Prime Minister committed to and got rid of the carbon tax on gasoline. There was the fuel excise tax we took off the price of gas effective April 1 and going to Labour Day weekend. There is the national school food program we have instituted in schools. The Conservatives always vote against these things. Can the member explain why, if the Conservatives care about affordability, they vote against Liberal initiatives to—

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis

Marianne Dandurand

Liberal
“Our clean fuel rules make a lot of money for Canadian farmers, especially canola growers. Why would the Conservatives want to take that income away from them?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I find this very interesting. My colleague is a Conservative MP from an urban area. I would like to hear her views on the impact of potentially repealing the clean fuel regulations, which have generated significant revenue for farmers, including those on the Prairies, particularly canola growers. This involves processing that happens in Canada. Why would we want to take this revenue away from our farmers?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 122

All 46 items ·
  1. Government Orders Business of Supply 64 statements
  2. Government Orders Business of Supply 45 statements
  3. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 4 statements
  4. Oral Questions Taxation 4 statements
  5. Oral Questions The Economy 4 statements
  6. Oral Questions Justice 6 statements
  7. Oral Questions The Economy 16 statements
  8. Oral Questions The Environment 4 statements
  9. Oral Questions Finance 6 statements
  10. Oral Questions Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship 10 statements
  11. Oral Questions Public Safety 8 statements
  12. Oral Questions Women and Gender Equality 2 statements
  13. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 6 statements
  14. Oral Questions Natural Resources 2 statements
  15. Oral Questions Fisheries and Oceans 2 statements
  16. Oral Questions Labour 2 statements
  17. Oral Questions The Environment 2 statements
  18. Oral Questions Business of the House 2 statements
  19. Government Orders Government Orders 2 statements
  20. Oral Questions Taxation 4 statements
  21. Oral Questions Emergency Management 3 statements
  22. Government Orders Business of Supply 15 statements
  23. Government Orders Business of Supply 15 statements
  24. Government Orders Business of Supply 27 statements
  25. Private Members' Business An Act to repeal certain restrictions on shipping 12 statements
  26. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  27. Government Orders Business of Supply 366 statements
  28. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements