Canadian Fuel Affordability Act

Bill C-38, Canadian Fuel Affordability Act · Second reading · now law Where it stands

What the law does

The law extends the temporary suspension of the federal fuel excise tax until January 31, 2027. Between February 1, 2027, and March 31, 2027, excise tax rates on fuels are set at 50% of their regular rates.

Official text (opens in a new tab)

65 statements

Tamara Kronis, Nanaimo—Ladysmith

Conservative
“High fuel costs are not going away anytime soon. Steady fuel taxes help keep food prices stable. Why will the government not make this fuel tax cut permanent right now?”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, one of the things the member said in his remarks was that the problem is not a short-term problem and that he could see the government having to extend this again depending on the circumstances. Given the value that stability has to food prices in particular, why is the government not considering our recommendation that it should be extended right now permanently for the foreseeable future?

Carlos Leitão, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry

Liberal
“This tax cut should be temporary, not permanent. Global experts say governments should only use temporary help during hard times so they do not mess up the market. We do not know what oil prices will be in the future, but once the market calms down, this tax break should end.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, indeed, as I pointed out, which is recommended by independent agencies like the World Bank and the IMF, governments should resist the temptation to put in place permanent measures that may distort markets. In a period of need, as is the case now, we should put in place temporary measures. I do not know what will be happening in January. We do not know if the war will still be going on in the Strait of Hormuz and if crude oil prices will remain above $100, but at some point, the oil market will return to a more stable level, and at that time, the temporary measures will be removed.

Jean-Denis Garon, Mirabel

Bloc Québécois

Linked statement

“The previous speaker said help should be targeted to people who need it. Cutting fuel taxes for everyone, including the richest people, is not targeted. How can he claim it is?”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague’s speech. At the end, he told us that temporary, targeted measures should be adopted if necessary. Those were the two criteria he mentioned. How does my colleague think that suspending the excise tax on all fuels, which applies to all Canadians, including the top 20% of income earners as well as the wealthiest 1%, qualifies as a targeted measure?

Carlos Leitão, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry

Liberal
“I support this bill. It lowers fuel costs for everyone right away, even if it is not targeted to specific people. It is quick and temporary, just like what we did last April.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, it is, in fact, a temporary measure. It is not as targeted as the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, for example. However, what we lose by having a more targeted measure for fuel prices, we quickly gain back. This is something that can be implemented quickly. That is what we did last April, and that is what we are continuing to do now. It is quick and temporary.

Brad Vis, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford

Conservative
“I support cutting fuel taxes, but this bill does not go far enough. Small businesses are struggling with high costs, red tape, and tariffs. The government should keep fuel taxes low for longer and cut red tape so businesses can survive.”
  • A repeated line

    “Any relief for working Canadians is good news.”

    Said 3 times by 3 members since September 22.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the hard-working small business owners in Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford and across Canada. This is a group of Canadians that is facing more pressure than the average person. They are faced with the same stressors, such as food prices that are making it difficult to feed their families and skyrocketing rent that is consuming more of their earnings, while they are also trying to keep their businesses afloat. It is clear the government agrees with Conservatives that Canadians and small business owners cannot afford an increase in gas prices anytime soon. This is a good thing because we tried to do this a few months ago and it was rejected by the government at that time. The Liberals’ failure to deliver the economic certainty they promised has piled even more uncertainty onto small businesses, and Canadians across the board are paying the price right now. When businesses pay more to make, move and sell the things people need, these costs show up in the prices consumers pay. This is at a time when 49% of people, almost half of working Canadians, feel less financially secure than they did a year ago. Any relief for working people is good news, but a modest extension of the Liberals’ current plan will not be enough for Canadians already squeezed by higher costs. I have risen many times in this chamber since the last election, quoting studies and statistics reflecting the abysmal state of small businesses and the health of small businesses in our country. Let me give a few more examples. In April, a record high of 74% of small business owners reported fuel as an input cost causing difficulties. Nationally, seven in 10 businesses impacted by fuel cost pressures report absorbing increases through lower profits, half have increased prices charged to customers, one-third have delayed planned investments and close to one in five has cancelled investments altogether. Six in 10 small businesses cite fuel costs as one of the biggest challenges, ahead of taxes, labour and economic uncertainty. The concerns with this tax are not in isolation. They are spurred on by the affordability crisis and the trade war with the United States. Canadians have enough on their plate. A hastily reintroduced fuel tax before the end of the trade war will only harm already struggling small businesses and the people who buy from them. This is particularly true in rural communities, such as the one I represent. For example, recent changes by the Canada Border Services Agency at the Abbotsford-Huntingdon crossing are creating serious challenges for local businesses. After 8 p.m., drivers must now commute to alternate crossings, one 20 kilometres away and the other almost 40 kilometres away. Companies facing this choice certainly cannot afford to pay a reinstated excise taxes on that extra 20 to 40 kilometres next year. Why would the Liberals continue to entertain half measures when keeping fuel taxes low has proven to provide the relief Canadians need? The Business Council of British Columbia is in Ottawa this week, meeting with MPs and reinforcing a simple message, which is that we need real regulatory reform, and right now, the government is not doing enough to get rid of red tape. Under the leadership of the government, Canada, in many respects, has become hostile toward entrepreneurs. Statistics Canada documented the impacts of a 37% rise in federal regulatory restrictions between 2006 and 2021. This surge was directly associated with a 1.7 percentage point decline in GDP growth, alongside drops in business investment, productivity, employment, and the rate of new business formation. In 2000, self-employment in Canada accounted for roughly 16.1% of total employment. By 2025, that share had fallen to 12.9%, the lowest in decades. A report from the Montreal Economic Institute notes, “The decline in entrepreneurship became more pronounced after 2018, coinciding with a series of federal tax changes that raised costs and showed hostility toward entrepreneurs.” As a result of this economic hostility created by the Liberals, Canada is losing talent and capital to the United States, with 40% of established businesses considering leaving Canada, and too many of our brightest graduates leaving even before they get started. According to a TD Economics report, “graduates in mathematics, computer science, and engineering are less likely to remain in Canada than non STEM graduates, even among Canadian citizens. Doctoral [students] and graduates from highly ranked universities have the lowest retention rates, particularly in the first five years after graduation.” University of Waterloo data shows “that the highest-performing students are the most likely to leave Canada after graduation.” Among Canadian-born students, exit rates at the top of the skill distribution are roughly double those at the bottom. It is fundamental that a new grad sees Canada as more advantageous from both a tax regulatory perspective and a competitiveness perspective to start a business here or to work for a Canadian business, but over decades of federal mismanagement, we have moved away from that. At a time when Canadian businesses are already facing tariffs and uncertainty accessing U.S. markets, the last thing they need is higher domestic input costs. New estimates reveal that 53,112 businesses are directly impacted by either U.S. tariffs, Canadian countertariffs or, in some cases, both. Small businesses across Canada will bear the brunt of unjustified American tariffs, with 77% of affected exporters expecting revenue losses. While the Government of Canada responds with countervailing tariffs, it must learn from the challenges that businesses faced during previous rounds of retaliatory action. Many small businesses did not receive the support needed under earlier measures due to complicated administrative processes. The regional tariff response initiative saw an extremely low uptake, with fewer than 1% of small businesses applying and four in five being unaware that the program existed. As a result, firms most affected by tariffs and countertariffs were left without access to support. According to the CFIB, the most recently announced federal tariff support programs continued “to exclude about half of the small business community”. Earlier this month, on a call with members of Parliament—

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 141

  1. Government Orders Canadian Fuel Affordability Act 92 statements
  2. Oral Questions The Economy 12 statements
  3. Government Orders Canadian Fuel Affordability Act 10 statements
  4. Oral Questions Government Priorities 6 statements
  5. Oral Questions The Economy 4 statements
  6. Oral Questions Forestry Industry 4 statements
  7. Oral Questions Housing 4 statements
  8. Oral Questions The Economy 2 statements
  9. Oral Questions Canadian Identity and Culture 4 statements
  10. Oral Questions Housing 4 statements
  11. Oral Questions The Economy 8 statements
  12. Oral Questions Public Safety 4 statements
  13. Oral Questions Justice 4 statements
  14. Oral Questions The Economy 8 statements
  15. Oral Questions The Economy 2 statements
  16. Oral Questions Justice 4 statements
  17. Oral Questions Taxation 2 statements
  18. Oral Questions The Economy 2 statements
  19. Oral Questions Labour 6 statements
  20. Oral Questions Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship 2 statements
  21. Government Orders Canadian Fuel Affordability Act 65 statements
  22. Oral Questions Justice 2 statements
  23. Private Members' Business Jury Duty Appreciation Week Act 6 statements
  24. Government Orders Canadian Fuel Affordability Act 182 statements
  25. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  26. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements