“Our government is helping with costs by cutting the gas tax. I want to know why the Conservatives voted against our program to help Canadians pay for groceries.”

“Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the member opposite tries to imply, the Government of Canada understands the issue of affordability. That is why we see relief, in terms of the excise tax on gasoline. I have a question for the member opposite. Why does the Conservative Party not support the groceries and essentials program that the Government of Canada has brought forward, which is providing significant relief to millions of Canadians? The Conservative Party says it does not want to support that one. On the one hand, the Conservatives want us to do a little bit more. On the other hand, they vote against it when we do it in the form of the grocery program.”

“I want the member to explain why his party voted against our affordability help. I want to know if he will vote for the money we want to give people for groceries and essentials.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear from my colleague this morning, but I am a little surprised by his comments. The people in his riding are capable of keeping things in perspective. First, I want to congratulate him on becoming a grandfather. He will be happy to know that we are going to build the strongest economy in the G7 for his grandson or granddaughter. We know people are watching us at home, and I am sure my colleague will record today’s proceedings. How will he explain to the people in his riding why he and his party voted against the affordability measures? Is he going to vote against the measure to ensure that, on June 5, people in his riding will receive the Canada groceries and essentials benefit? This is a measure that will help 12 million Canadians, including people in his riding. Can he tell them today on camera whether he will vote in favour of this measure, which will help people in his riding?”

“Canadians care about the high cost of rent, food, and gas. Our government is helping with housing, sending money to help with food prices, and cutting the federal gas tax. Is the member also asking the provinces to cut their fuel taxes?”

“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here to listen to the remarks of my colleague. If she wants to talk about affordability, I am sure she knows that the three things that concern Canadians are the price of rent, the price of food and the price of gas. I am sure she will go back to her constituents to say that Canada has taken the lead in helping Canadians with more affordable homes. I am sure she is going to talk to her constituents on June 5, when 12 million Canadians will get the boost they need to cope with the inflation we have seen in the price of food. I am sure she will say that the federal government removed the federal excise tax on gas. The question I have for the member is this: Is she asking the provinces to remove the taxes they have put on fuel across the nation? That is an interesting question. I would like the member to explain to the House what she is asking of the provinces.”

• Echo ×5

  A repeated line

  “The price of food and the price of gas.”

  Said 5 times by 2 members since May 26.

  Every time it was said →

“The opposition is wrong about why gas prices fell in 2014. It was because the oil supply went up, not because of taxes. I also want to ask my colleague if government help should go only to people who need it, or to rich people too.”

“Mr. Speaker, before I ask my question, there is something that the members opposite have been saying over and over again, which is that, in 2014, oil prices were what they are now and gasoline prices were much lower. That is just not correct. It is factually incorrect. Perhaps they should stop saying that. Oil prices started 2014 at $100 a barrel, and they closed the year at $57. That was the year of shale oil in the U.S. There were massive oil inventories, and that is why gasoline prices came way down. It is not the taxes. Come on. My question is about support for families. Does my colleague think assistance to families should be targeted, or should it be generalized so that rich people get the same relief as poor people?”

“I want the House to pass this bill. It temporarily pauses the federal fuel tax to make gas cheaper this summer. Our government has already lowered income taxes, cut fuel prices, and sent extra money to help families buy groceries.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and set the record straight. We have heard a lot of things this morning, but I believe that folks listening at home want the facts. They know we are facing the biggest energy crisis in decades, according to the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency. I am therefore very pleased to take part in today’s debate on an issue that affects all Canadians. We are well aware that affordability is the number one concern of Canadians. We are talking about the cost of housing, the cost of groceries and, of course, the cost of gas. I also want to say that Canada is not immune to the global situation. In fact, we discussed this very issue with our G7 colleagues when we met last week. Canada is proving itself to be a leader in affordability. Canada has taken targeted measures that will help families and Canadians across the country. I would even go so far as to say that, in international discussions, people often view Canada as a country that has used its fiscal capacity wisely to help families and households in their time of need. The rapidly changing global environment is creating uncertainty for businesses, workers and families. People are saying that there is a fog of uncertainty shrouding the planet right now, and I would say that Canada, in such a context, is in a position to take concrete action to help people and certainly to help businesses, workers and households. Faced with this situation, the government is focusing on what it can control, which is to build a stronger economy to lower the cost of living for Canadians and to build the strongest and most resilient economy in the G7. We are particularly mindful of the pressures caused by rising gas prices in a global environment marked by significant geopolitical tensions. As I said, Canadians fully understand the geopolitical situation facing countries around the world. That is exactly why we acted. There have been a lot of speeches this morning, but what Canadians want to see is action, and that is what our government has been delivering. The International Energy Agency has called this the most severe energy crisis in history. That is the backdrop that we are all facing. It is the largest energy crisis in history. In fact, that is why the measures we have taken in affordable housing, groceries and suspending the federal excise tax on fuel are making a difference in the lives of Canadians. Last month, I joined the Prime Minister here in Ottawa to introduce a temporary suspension of the federal fuel excise tax on gasoline, diesel and aviation fuels. Since April 20 and until Labour Day, we are ensuring Canadians will not have to pay the fuel excise tax at the pumps. For us, this was a priority to help Canadians and businesses manage these global pressures. This is expected to reduce Canadians’ bill at the gas station by 10¢ per litre on regular gasoline and 4¢ on diesel. This represents almost $6 when filling a typical 50-litre tank of fuel. That is meaningful support for Canadians and consumers. This measure will also help reduce operating costs for businesses in the food, agriculture, housing, construction and trucking sectors, because we know that, with lower costs and greater financial strength, businesses can hire more workers and confidently build and export more products to global markets. It would also help Canadian families save on their transportation costs as they set out to explore our beautiful country this summer. The suspension is estimated to provide relief of over $2.4 billion in 2026 and 2027. I just want to remind my colleague who was talking about additional revenues that, as I outlined in the spring economic update, two-thirds of the additional revenues that we have received have been used to support Canadian families at a time of need. This is just one of several measures we have put forward to alleviate the pressure of the higher cost of fuel on Canadian households and budgets. I expect that my Conservative colleagues who are here this morning will support Bill C-30 because it is a bill that would actually put in motion what we have just discussed this morning. It is good to ask questions, and it is good to make speeches, but it is even better to vote in favour of a bill that would make a difference in the lives of Canadians. I can see in their eyes and in their smiles that they intend to vote, and we are going to look for that. Their constituents are going to be watching to see if they vote for support that would reduce fuel costs. Right after taking office, the Prime Minister cancelled the federal consumer fuel charge, effective April 1, 2025, in a move that directly helped Canadians save money at the pump. We have taken a suite of measures to reduce the price of fuel across the country. Our government also removed the requirement for provinces and territories to have a consumer-facing carbon price as of that date. These actions helped reduce gas prices in most provinces and territories by about 18¢ per litre in comparison to 2024‑25. Our measures have been targeted and are effective. If we compare the measures that Canada has been taking among the G7, we will see that they are very targeted. They have been very effective, and a number of countries are looking for the leadership of Canada, in terms of the measures that will help Canadians. For many Canadians, the cost of groceries and basic necessities remains a constant concern. We know that, because that is what we are hearing right across the country. That is why we decided to take action. We did not wait; we decided to take action to support families. We are all aware that the pandemic caused a global spike in inflation that drove up the cost of food and essentials. People watching at home understand that Canada is not immune to global pressures such as climate change, tariffs, supply chain disruptions and fuel costs. People understand that Canada is not immune to all this, but we are able to act on what we control. That is exactly what we have done. Food prices have gone up faster than inflation due to shocks caused by global supply chain disruptions, new tariffs, climate-related weather events and, as I already mentioned, geopolitical tensions. In the face of this reality, our government has taken concrete steps to make life more affordable in the short term, while strengthening food security and supporting innovation in the agriculture and agri-food sector. I spoke with our colleagues at the Union des producteurs agricoles, or UPA, to better understand how we can become more resilient, produce more here at home and be less dependent on foreign imports. To support those most affected by rising food prices, in January, our government announced the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit, a very targeted and important benefit that will help over 12 million Canadians. Every member of the House here today has constituents in their ridings who will benefit from this measure because it will help people cover the basics of everyday life. This measure is based on the GST credit. The benefit will provide an additional $11.7 billion in support over six years. That is close to $12 billion that will go into Canadians’ pockets. First, we are talking about a one-time payment that will be issued starting on June 5. I am counting on all members of the House to tell their constituents that many people will receive this assistance on June 5. The payment will be 50% of the total annual GST credit amount for 2025‑26 and will provide immediate assistance of $3.1 billion to eligible individuals and families. In addition, the GST credit will be increased by 25% for five years starting in July. There is a one-time payment, but we have also included support for the coming years to help families cope with the cost of groceries. The increase will provide an additional $8.6 billion in support and will also enable approximately 500,000 new individuals and families to benefit from this new program. This is substantial support. Just yesterday, I was talking to people in a grocery store. I was also talking to the managers and telling them that putting money like this directly into people’s pockets will help many families cope with the rising food prices we have been seeing. In practical terms, a family of four could receive up to $1,890 this year and about $1,400 a year for the next four years. A single person could receive up to $950 this year and about $700 a year thereafter. These are significant sums for nearly 12 million Canadians. Our government is also delivering major tax cuts to give Canadians a break because we have heard how we can help Canadians. Since July 1, 2025, Canadians have been paying less tax after the government lowered the first marginal personal income tax rate from 15% to 14%. This was the very first thing we did as a government. The very first thing we did was to lower taxes for 22 million Canadians, and this is making a difference. This is responsible. This is a measure that has been helping everyone in this country. Thanks to this change, 22 million Canadians benefit from tax relief of up to $420 per person, saving two-income families up to $840 a year. Our government has also eliminated the GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes up to $1 million and reduced the GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes between $1 million and $1.5 million. In addition, and I think we should all be very proud as members of the House, we made the national school food program permanent. This is something that will be remembered for generations. It is providing school meals for up to 400,000 children each year, saving families with children in school who benefit from it an estimated $800 annually on groceries. Helping our children in making sure they have a good meal to start the day is, I am sure, something every member of the House should feel good about. I am thinking about the member who will have his grandchildren soon. This is a measure that is helping our kids and our grandkids yet to come and that is very well liked by families. However, we do not stop there. There is more good news. We have also introduced the automatic federal benefits, starting with the 2026 tax year. We looked at what was going on in different countries, we looked at best practices, and I would say that automatic federal benefits are one of them. This will ensure that 5.5 million low-income Canadians automatically receive the benefits they qualify for by the 2028 tax year, including the Canada groceries and essentials benefit and the Canada child benefit. We have also moved forward with ambitious pro-competition measures in the telecom and financial sectors to strengthen competition, reduce prices, offer more choice to Canadians and allow Canadians to more easily switch between providers and pay lower bank and service fees. In conclusion, because I am eager to get questions from my colleagues so that I can say even more about what we are doing to support Canadians, our plan is moving Canada’s economy from reliance to resilience. Canadians understand that we need to invest in our economy to build the strongest economy in the G7. That is why, in budget 2025, I was pleased to introduce and present generational investments in housing, infrastructure, competitiveness, innovation and our defence. It is a plan that has been applauded by international organizations like the International Monetary Fund, which says Canada has the strongest fiscal position of the G7. In fact, we have the lowest net debt to GDP and one of the lowest deficits in the G7, and we are one of only two countries in the G7 that has a AAA credit rating. The strong fiscal position we have is allowing us to invest in our future but also to support Canadians now, at a time of need. That is why I am so pleased that, also with Bill C-30, we have put a number of measures in the spring economic update that would support Canadians, build our country and make our communities safer. I look forward to hearing from my colleagues. I know they are keen to support Bill C-30 as well. They understand that we need to build Canada strong. They understand that we need to empower Canadians. They understand that we need to build safer communities. We will continue to work with all members of the House to make sure that we build this country strong and that we have the strongest economy in the G7.”

• Echo ×14

  A repeated line

  “We have also made the national school food program permanent.”

  Said 14 times by 11 members since May 7.

  Every time it was said →

“The member is right that Canadians care about the cost of rent, food, and gas. Our government is already helping. We are building more affordable homes, sending money for groceries to 12 million people, lowering income taxes for 22 million people, and pausing the fuel tax.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that my Conservative colleague realizes the reality in this country. He is right to say that what concerns Canadians is the price of rent, the price of food and the price of gas. I am sure he is going to go back to his constituents soon, and the good news is that he will be able to explain to them that in fact the Government of Canada has already acted to provide more affordable housing, which is the first pillar of affordability. That way, the grocery and essentials benefit is going to make a difference in the lives of 12 million Canadians. He is probably going to talk also about the fact that we have reduced taxes for the first bracket, from 15% to 14%, helping 22 million Canadians. I am sure, because I know him, that he is going to talk also about the fact that we have suspended the fuel excise tax, which is providing meaningful support to Canadians across the country.”

• Echo ×5

  A repeated line

  “The price of food and the price of gas.”

  Said 5 times by 2 members since May 26.

  Every time it was said →

“I want the Bloc Québécois to vote for this budget bill. It will help Canadians deal with the high costs of housing, groceries, and gas.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague’s question also gives me the opportunity to speak in the language of Molière, whom we all admire here in the House. The Bloc Québécois members may not have said it yet, but I look at them this morning and I can see it in their smiles and in their hearts. I think they are going to vote for Bill C-30 because they know that Quebeckers need this help. I believe that, as members here in the House, we all need to support Canadians at a time like this. When my colleague goes to his riding, he is aware, just as I am, of the issues surrounding housing affordability, grocery prices, and gas prices. These are important issues, but it is important to note that Bill C-30 will bring this measure into effect. I hope that my colleague will not only ask a question this morning, but also take meaningful action to support lowering costs and lend a helping hand to Canadian families.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 45 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The Conservatives claim they stand up for Canadians, but they voted against child benefit payments and the school food program. I want the finance minister to explain how our government's programs help families.”

“Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to welcome the Minister of Finance to my riding a few times already, and I know that he has seen all the benefits that our programs have delivered for families since we were both first elected in 2015. Earlier, I heard Conservative members say that they would stand up for Canadians. However, when it came time to do so, for example on the Canada child benefit or the national school food program, a bill that I introduced in the House, they voted against those things. Those measures would have helped the families in those members’ ridings, but once again, these are the kinds of things that they do to avoid helping families. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance to tell us how all these programs have benefited families in my region and in his.”

“Our government helps families by making housing more affordable and giving parents money through the child benefit. The Conservatives vote against these supports.”

“Mr. Speaker, I recognize the wisdom behind my colleague’s question. Yes, when it was time to stand up for Canadians, the Conservatives remained seated. When it was time to stand up for families, the Conservatives were nowhere to be found. I remember the votes. It is important to vote for affordability at every opportunity. My colleague is right. What I saw with him in New Brunswick, we are seeing across the country. That is why Canada is a leader. We have taken action on affordable housing. That is the first pillar of affordability. We were there with the Canada child benefit. We want to talk about what we have already done, which is obviously helping families across the country. If there is one thing people watching at home know, it is that we on this side of the House will always stand up to support families and Canadians when they need it.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 31 of 100

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

  See full analysis →
• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 34 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 →

“We are spending two-thirds of the government's seven billion dollars in new revenue to help people right now. We are putting that money toward housing and groceries because people are worried about paying their bills today.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for that important question. I am grateful to her. She has always encouraged the House to consider measures that will help Canadians across the country. She will be pleased to learn that, as I was saying, in the 2026 spring economic update, we actually put two-thirds of that $7 billion in additional revenue toward helping people. We are helping them with housing and groceries because I believe that is what matters right now. Yes, investing for the future is important, but people are worried about making it to the end of the week or the end of the month. They want us to help them now, while we are building a strong country together. I think my colleague understands that we have demonstrated fiscal discipline while showing up with compassion to help Canadians in their time of need.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 45 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“People want us to be careful with money, but they also want help with housing and food. We are using government revenue to help make things more affordable. We also paused the fuel tax to lower gas prices, even though world oil prices control most of that cost.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would also like to compliment my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska for speaking in both languages in the House. Doing that in the House is important. My reply has two parts. First, I know many people in Richmond—Arthabaska, and I think that his constituents want fiscal responsibility and discipline. They understand that additional revenues have been raised and they also understand that a portion of these revenues are going toward help with housing and groceries. These measures are going to support affordability. I think that the impact of temporarily suspending the excise tax on gas is already having a direct impact at the pumps. However, my colleague is well aware that over 80% of the price at the pump is determined by global oil prices. We are ready to do our part, and we have done it. I think that the people of Richmond—Arthabaska can see that our government will always be there to help them in their time of need.”

“I agree with the Bloc Québécois for voting against this Conservative motion. But the member said our plans only pretend to help people. Does he really think our grocery benefit will not help the 12 million Canadians who will get it?”

“Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank my colleague for his speech. I also commend his party, since he said that the Bloc Québécois will be voting against the Conservative motion. In that regard, we are on the same wavelength. There are, of course, many other things my colleague mentioned that I do not fully agree with. There is just one aspect that I would like him to clarify for me. He said that the government’s measures are just giving the impression of helping people. Does my colleague think that the Canada groceries and essentials benefit is just giving the impression of helping? That benefit will help 12 million Canadians starting on June 5.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 34 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 →

“Can the member admit that at least one thing this government did helped people in Quebec? Or is he just ignoring good things for political reasons?”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue along the same lines as my colleague. The member said that the government is just giving the impression of helping people. Is he willing to acknowledge at least one measure that has helped Quebeckers, or is his strategy to deny that any progress has been made, for political reasons?”

“I agree with my colleague that we should vote against this motion, and that the Conservatives are wrong about gas prices in 2014. Does my colleague agree that our grocery benefit is well designed to help the people who need it most?”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his speech, and I thank him for reiterating that the Bloc Québécois will be voting against this motion. We are on the same page, which is great. I would also like to thank my colleague for pointing out that, lately, our Conservative friends have often referred to the price of gas in 2014. However, what the Conservative members are saying is factually incorrect. I want to thank my colleague for pointing that out as well. Now I have a question about the groceries and essentials benefit. Does my colleague not think that this is a well‑targeted benefit? We did not simply change the name of the transfer. We are using the GST credit criteria to target those most in need.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 31 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 budget update invests in clean power, protecting nature, and clean infrastructure. It also keeps our investments in other countries. Does the member agree with this spending?”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech and congratulate him. I really enjoy working with him. The economic statement refers to the electrification strategy and the strategy to protect nature. We are maintaining our international investments. We are also investing in clean infrastructure. Does my colleague agree with those investments?”

• Off topic
  ?

  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 →

“The Conservatives ask for help with high costs, but then they vote against our plans. Our government created a permanent school food program so kids do not go hungry. Does the member agree that feeding kids at school helps families with costs?”

“Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. The Conservatives want the government to take some specific actions, yet when we take actions to support the issue of affordability, the Conservatives vote against them. Let me give a good example. I hope the member can relate to a problem that has been around for generations. When I was first elected in 1988, people were talking about children not being able to learn on empty stomachs. This Prime Minister and this government have made a permanent national food program for our schools. Does the member see it as a positive thing, on the issue of affordability, that young children have meals while they are at school?”

• Echo ×4

  A repeated line

  “Let me give a concrete example.”

  Said 4 times by 3 members since April 24.

  Every time it was said →

“Gas prices are high because of global oil prices, which the government cannot control. Cutting gas taxes would help rich people more than anyone else.”

“Mr. Speaker, I understand the situation very well. In my riding also, folks talk to us all the time about the high prices of gasoline and about the high cost of living. Everybody is worried about that. Also, folks do understand that the current high prices of gasoline come from the very sudden increase in crude oil prices, which is totally out of the government’s control. By the way, oil is a global commodity, so global oil prices affect everybody, including the United States. Does my colleague not think that an across-the-board reduction in gasoline taxes would benefit folks at the higher end of the income scale more than people—”

“Conservatives use false claims and extreme words to make people angry. We are helping people with high costs by funding school food programs, cutting taxes on gas, and helping with the cost of groceries. Canadians cannot trust Conservative claims about the economy.”

“Mr. Speaker, it has been an interesting debate thus far, so I thought I would contribute by maybe bringing a sense of reality to the situation and take more of a holistic approach to what is taking place. We all have a responsibility to stay in tune with our constituents. There is no doubt there is concern about affordability. There is concern about the economy. People are concerned about trade and tariff issues. There are concerns with regard to social programs, whether it is dealing with issues of health care, stabilizing the immigration issue or dental care programs. There is a much larger picture that needs to be taken into consideration when we debate the motion the Conservative Party has put forward. I would also suggest there is a need for us to look at the manner in which the far right is expressing itself today. I want to address those types of issues in my comments. I posed a question to the member for Prince Albert. There are two issues I would like to reflect on with regard to that particular question. I asked the member for Prince Albert about the national food program. This government and the Prime Minister made a very clear statement saying we are going to make a national food program permanent in our schools across this country, in every region. Over 400,000 children will directly benefit from that program. I further commented to the member for Prince Albert saying that for generations there have been issues surrounding children not having food when they go to school. I know that first-hand because I have witnessed it in Manitoba. I can recall former leader Sharon Carstairs talking about it in the Manitoba legislature and outside the legislature. To deny that is to deny the reality of what is taking place in the communities we represent. It even goes beyond the issue of affordability. Not every child goes to school with a full tummy that would enable them to digest the education or what the teachers are saying in the classroom. Having a permanent national food program would help deal with not only the issue of affordability, but also a social issue that is real and very tangible. When I put the question to the member for Prince Albert, his response was that, in essence, that is the difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals. The Conservatives say, no, we do not need a program like that. Other members of the Conservative Party have denied that it has even helped any children. Another member of the Conservative Party said it is a garbage program. These are the types of responses we get on an important national issue in every region of our nation. The issue of affordability is an important aspect, especially at this time. The member for Prince Albert went on to say that we do not need that. Families can take the responsibility of feeding their own family members. There is a great deal of merit in arguing that family members do provide for family members, but to make that blanket statement about all 400,000-plus children does a disservice to what is a good, sound public policy. Let us carry it over to groceries. We have the groceries and essentials benefit. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance had a press conference announcing a program that I believe is going to be there into the future to assist middle- and low-income individuals with the affordability of groceries. I asked Conservative members if they would support that program and the response has been, in essence, no. Let us take a look at how that program, much like the GST did in the past, supported individuals who needed the support the most. The program is very much targeted. Over 10 million Canadians are going to benefit from the implementation of that program, which is going to be taking effect at the beginning of June. Again, we have to look at the contrast. The Conservatives like the flash and the extreme statements. I would like to give an example of both on this issue. One of my colleagues shared ChatGPT with me and I have been able to use it over the last little while. I took a look at some of the false claims the Conservatives make. I believe the motion says we pay 13% more for gas than the Americans do. I can say to the members opposite that I am not too sure where they get these numbers from, but it is an example of an extreme statement and it is what the far right likes to do. They like to say something even if it is not true. Let me give members a tangible example. California has 39 million people. Canada has 40 million people. I did a bit of research. It was not much, but I did do some on this issue. I found that a U.S.A. gallon equals about 3.785 litres. In California, it costs $6.10 a gallon, which equates to $1.61 a litre. That is in U.S. dollars. Let us say someone wants to fill up their tank in California. They will find that, after they apply the conversion, it is going to cost $111.13 to put in 50 litres of gas. I most often get my gas on Salter Avenue in the north end of Winnipeg at gas station 204. It is a great gas station. It consistently has some of the best prices, if not the best price in Winnipeg when it comes to gas. I believe I paid less than $1.60 over the weekend. I quickly called them. I asked, “What are you charging today for a litre of gas?” He said they cannot necessarily convey it over the telephone. I said that I believed it was $1.55 or something like that recently. It was less than that. I do not know for a fact, but members can try to phone them. It is the 204 gas company on Salter, just south of Selkirk Avenue. Therefore, 50 litres of gas at that price would be $77.50. How does that price compare? The motion says we are paying 13% more than Americans. The Conservatives are telling my constituents that they are paying 13% more for gas than the Americans. The simple math tells me 50 litres of gas in California is going to cost my constituents $111, compared to getting it for $77.50. The point is we just cannot trust the Conservatives. If we look at the average price of gas in the United States we would find, at least based on the example in my experience of the last few days, that it is nowhere near what the Conservatives are purporting it to be today, but that does not stop them, because a part of their strategy, the far-right strategy, is to try to get the population angry. The government understands the important issue of affordability. Why, do members think, did we decrease the excise tax on gas? We recognize what is taking place in the Middle East, and it is having an impact that can be hard on the pocketbook of Canadians. That is why we delivered on the 10¢ tax break for gasoline. Let me give members a couple of quotes with respect to how the Conservative Party has moved to the right, and members can guess who might have said them. The first one is this: “There would be mass hunger and malnutrition with a tax this high.” I will let members guess who said that. It is from an address to the Conservative caucus. The next is from the same person, but in a different room, on the floor of the House of Commons: “extreme bloodshed and violence that Liberals have unleashed is what is radical.” These two quotes, one from the Conservative caucus and the other from the floor of the House of Commons, come from the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. Let us talk about extreme. Yesterday we heard from the member for Oxford. It is amazing how the Conservatives say this stuff. He said, “seniors are now starving to death.” Seriously, do members think there are people who believe the Conservative right today, with the degree to which the Conservatives have gone so far to the right? It makes one wonder, because the member for Oxford is not alone. There have been other extreme statements made by the Conservatives. That is no surprise if we listen to what the leader of the Conservative Party said in their caucus and on the floor of the House. We wonder why. It is more about trying to get Canadians angry. Yesterday in the House I was talking about how members of the Conservative Party go around Canada telling Canadians that Canada is broken, and how they try to justify that by throwing all sorts of numbers at them. However, I believe that if we were to canvass a vast majority of Canadians, we would find a sense of pride, a sense of wanting to collaborate, and at the very least the recognition that Canada is, from my perspective and I would argue that of most people, the best country in the world to call home, but we would never know that when listening to the Conservatives. This comes straight from the far-right leadership of the Conservative Party today. I look at that and compare it to the types of questions I have put forward. I have had the opportunity to ask questions. There is a substantial difference between the policy measures that come from the Conservatives and those that come from the government of the day. The Conservatives are trying to divide. They are trying their hardest to anger the population, especially the far right. Is it any wonder there has been such a rise of, in a word, hatred, to a certain degree, toward politicians in general, because of things such as misinformation, gross exaggeration and things that are just not real? Mr. Speaker, do you really believe that there are seniors starving to death in Canada today? We understand and appreciate the issue of affordability. That is why, unlike what the Conservatives are proposing, we have adopted a holistic approach to building a stronger, healthier economy, while at the same time being there and delivering for Canadians on the issue of affordability. This is not just something that we decided in the last day, 24 hours, or in the last week or month. This has been a commitment from our Prime Minister since day one. The issue of affordability and making life easier for Canadians has been there, top of mind, for the current government, and in particular for the Prime Minister, from day one. Just over a year ago, the first action taken by the Prime Minister reduced the price of gas substantially. It was the elimination of the carbon tax, and the government does see that as a positive initiative that made life more affordable for Canadians. We understood, as a new government with a new Prime Minister, how important it was to take that action, and it was the very first action by the Prime Minister. There was another action within weeks of being back in session, prior to last summer. We made a substantial tax break for Canada’s middle class. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, some Conservatives may try to belittle it, but 22 million Canadians benefited from that action. Mr. Speaker, you know, as I know, that this is the full truth. The member opposite should know it, because we debated the issue and forced the issue through prior to summer 2025. From it, 22 million Canadians benefited. We have eliminated the GST for first-time homebuyers. This is a substantial break for people who are trying to purchase a home for the first time. We have extended and enhanced things such as the Canada child benefit, a program that serves millions of Canadians, upwards of around six million or so, I believe. We have reinforced the importance of things such as the Canadian dental program and pharmacare for diabetes, and some other measures, making sure that we are protecting, where we can, those social services. There are actions the government has taken, such as what I referenced at the very beginning: the grocery and essentials benefit program. I thought that program would receive unanimous support from the House of Commons. The money is going out in June. It deals with the affordability issue in part, just as the excise tax taken off gas until Labour Day by the government does. We have to put this in the context of what is taking place in the Middle East. There is an energy crisis. The Prime Minister, the government and, in fact, the entire Liberal caucus recognize that and the importance of the issue of affordability, and we are there to have the backs of Canadians.”

• 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 →

“Everything I have said is true. The school food program helps young children, but the Conservatives do not support it. I want Conservatives to admit that our programs help people afford groceries and everyday needs.”

“Mr. Speaker, my friend opposite has to stop drinking the right-wing Kool-Aid. I can assure people who are listening that everything I have said is factual and that I can support it. The issue with the national food program, as the member said, is that it is targeted at young children and not at every child who goes to school. I will concede that, but the Conservative Party does not even recognize the value of it or of any other program that is there to support Canadians on the affordability front. I am still waiting for Conservatives to stand up and say, “You know what? The groceries and essentials benefit program is good for Canadians. It will help in terms of the issue of affordability.” Just one Conservative should stand up. It might be a little offside with the leader of the Conservative Party, but they can stand up and recognize it as a program that is going to help their constituents on the issue of affordability. It is not much to ask for. Hopefully there is one Conservative who will recognize a good program when it hits them in face.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 42 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“We temporarily cut the gas tax to help Canadians with costs during the crisis in the Middle East. It is helping regular drivers save money. The Bloc should support it.”

“Mr. Speaker, like other G7 countries, in fact allied countries that the Government of Canada works with, we monitor the price of oil. It is important to recognize that it is a tangible, deliverable tax break that is being given from April 1, I believe, to Labour Day weekend because of the crisis in the Middle East. It is a responsible public policy that is there to provide support on the issue of affordability. It has already made a difference. If the member wants to get a better sense of it, he can talk to constituents who have to pay for gas. It is not just rich people who benefit from this. If he goes to the lineups and talks to the consumer, he will hear that consumers are benefiting today because of this policy. I believe that the Bloc should be onside and support the 10¢ excise tax relief being provided to all Canadians.”