“This bill to lower fuel taxes was a Conservative idea. The Liberals took a year to copy it. I wonder what other Conservative ideas they will use next.”

“Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the Liberals have been implementing the Conservative agenda, maybe at half speed, but this particular bill was definitely our idea. We are glad to see that maybe a year later after the fact, they are actually doing it. I am just wondering what other great ideas the Conservatives have had that the Liberals will be implementing soon.”

“The member praised removing the carbon tax on gas because it lowers food transportation costs. For ten years, his party attacked Conservatives for wanting the same thing. Now that his government has adopted our idea, I want to know if he supports removing all federal taxes on transportation.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate and thank my colleague for his speech, and I would like to remind the House that it will soon be two years since he was elected. He has been here for a year and a half. I was pleasantly surprised to hear him praise the elimination of carbon pricing on gas, saying that it had a direct impact on buying food, which has to be transported. I know that he has been here for a year and a half, but his current colleagues spent 10 years saying that it was appalling to attack carbon pricing and that we, the Conservatives, had zero respect for the environment. The opposite is true. Since he got off to a good start, since he applauded the fact that his government has done what we have been demanding for years, does he agree with our proposal to immediately abolish all federal taxes that affect transportation?”

“I support this bill because it pauses the federal fuel tax and gives Canadians some relief. Conservatives asked for this months ago. But the government must pay for this tax cut by cutting wasteful spending instead of adding to the deficit. The government also needs to scrap its clean fuel rules, which make gas more expensive.”

“Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Battle River—Crowfoot. It is good to be back in the House doing the work that Canadians sent us here to do. I think everyone agrees that it has been a long summer for the Canadian economy, for our trade relationships and for families, especially for families watching their bills climb faster than their paycheques. For three months, the doors of this Parliament stayed closed while government members were unable to answer for any of it, some because they truly did not know what was going on and some because they simply do not see their role as being accountable in this place. Let me say it plainly. This sitting is overdue, this debate is overdue, this policy prescription is overdue and the people we represent right across the country who are being locked out of accountability deserve much better than this. Our approach to this session is very simple. When the government does something that helps Canadians, we will support it, and when it makes things worse, we will oppose it, as we always have, strongly and without apology. Today’s bill falls into that first category. This legislation would finally remove the federal excise tax on gasoline until January 31 and cut it in half until the end of March. That is real, although temporary, relief, and Conservatives will support it. However, I would ask the government to be honest about something: where the idea came from. We have been calling on exactly this since the spring. This is once again the government adopting a Conservative solution after insisting for months it was not at all necessary and after looking families in the face and saying no. We are pleased that the Liberals have come around, but we simply ask why on earth it too so long and, more importantly, why it stops here. It is worth remembering what the Prime Minister said before he had this job. In February 2025, he built his entire leadership pitch around fiscal discipline. He said, “spend less, invest more”, warning that Ottawa could not keep borrowing from the future to pay for today. Let me be clear. We are not opposed to this relief, as we have been asking for it since the spring, but relief and recklessness are not the same thing, and the difference is simple: find the money. Conservatives have identified $150 billion in savings from wasteful spending precisely so that Canadians can get relief without adding another dollar to the tab that their own kids will pay for. The government has not done the work. It simply added this tax measure onto a deficit it has already doubled, a deficit that has strangled families at home and that has made it less affordable to buy food, groceries and gas. The question is not whether to give Canadians relief. It is whether the Prime Minister still believes what he told Canadians before he had the job and whether “spend less, invest more” is just something one says to win an election, not something one does after it has already been won. Here is the other answer. This is the part we see very clearly and that I think Canadians ought to see very clearly, and it is where some in the House may be confused. It is what this bill tells us about the government’s real position. The government cut the excise tax, but it left the clean fuel standard in place. It left it completely untouched. That is not actually an oversight. It is a regulation that exists specifically to keep fuel expensive in this country, and it is by design. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, not just some newspaper article, it is already adding seven cents a litre and is set to climb to 17¢ by 2030. That is not real relief. It is not even temporary relief. It is policy by design to keep gas expensive in this country. I am sure I can continue when we resume after question period, but I want to end with this. The government wants Canadians to believe that it is fighting for cheaper gas. That simply is not true. It is protecting the one policy that guarantees gas gets more expensive in this country every single year, more expensive than the last. It cannot claim relief at the pump on one hand while holding the other hand on the tax that keeps prices high. If people take one thing from this debate, it should be this, because it is not a change in policy. It is a temporary relief measure for Canadians that we will absolutely support, of course.”