“I want the member to answer my question. Does she agree that we should stop collecting this fuel tax forever, instead of bringing it back later?”

“Mr. Speaker, I asked a question to our colleague earlier today and I will ask it again. I am just wondering if the member opposite feels that it is better to continue to not take tax off to give relief to Canadians, versus bringing back a tax to offset the cost, which is taking from one pocket and putting it into another pocket for Canadians. Would it not be better to just not take the tax and extend this fuel excise tax holiday forever?”

“High fuel prices make food cost more, and that problem will not go away soon. I want the government to cancel the fuel tax for good instead of passing short-term pauses.”

“Mr. Speaker, it has been really heartening to hear today the recognition from the Liberal benches of the degree to which the excise tax impacts affordability. One of the things, though, that we have also heard is that, especially with the way the price of diesel is going, the impact on the price of food is going to continue to be felt. It is not going to be a short-term problem, yet the government is proposing a short-term solution. Therefore, I am wondering if the member can explain why the government has chosen to put itself in a position where it has to keep renewing this, and spending time in the House on it, when it is a problem that is clearly going to be a long-term problem. They could make this a long-term solution, cancel the tax and help, particularly food producers, with affordability by providing stability in that environment.”

“I support this bill, but it does not go far enough. Pausing only part of the fuel tax helps a little, but the government should remove all federal taxes on fuel. People in rural areas have to drive to work and school, and fuel taxes make everything more expensive, including groceries. The government should cut all fuel taxes permanently.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege and honour, as always, to rise on behalf of the people of Elgin County, St. Thomas and London, although, despite our absence from this chamber over the last few months, I note that not much has changed with the Liberals. They are still out of alignment with where the majority of Canadians are right now, which is finding that they cannot afford life in this country after 11 years of the Liberals. They are still unwilling to look in the mirror and recognize that they themselves are the problem and, therefore, not the solution. More importantly, they must be dragged kicking and screaming into doing the right thing. The bill they are coming forward with today is a step in the right direction, but only a step, and only a little nudge towards where we ultimately need to be. Back in April, when we were seeing the rising high gas prices in this country, Conservatives said we need to cut all of the federal taxes on fuel for Canadians to give them a break. The Liberals eventually came around, but they offered a fraction of the tax relief we were pushing for, for a fraction of the time. Even this proposed extension does not go nearly far enough when Canadians still cannot afford to fill up their fuel tanks. I will say that is especially clear in ridings such as mine where driving is a necessity and not a luxury. If someone is living in Vienna, Fingal or Port Stanley, Ontario, they have to drive to get around. Oftentimes, workers have to drive to get to work. Students have to drive to get to school. This is a reality. High fuel prices and high fuel taxes bear a disproportionate weight on rural Canadians, the people who the Liberals have often looked down upon and have not really acknowledged. We know this by looking at what the Liberals themselves have said about fuel taxes in the past. Now, interestingly enough, going back to April, when we originally called for this fuel tax cut, the bigger one, not the Liberal one, Liberals pooh-poohed it. They kind of brushed it off. The finance minister said, when we asked if they were going to cut the fuel taxes, “we will not take lessons from the Conservatives.” That was on Monday. On Tuesday, they took our policy. We have had other examples of this where people have risen in the House of Commons on the Conservative bench and asked the Liberal government when it was going to provide tax relief at the pumps for Canadians, and the Liberals said anything other than yes, because they fundamentally do not believe in it. We know this. For example, the member for Winnipeg North actually said that it was “far right” to oppose the Liberal carbon tax. Mark Holland, the former Liberal health minister, rose in this chamber and, believe it or not, said that if a family takes a road trip, they are letting “the planet burn” because they are filling up the tank to go on a nice, affordable family vacation. This is what we have heard from the Liberals, time and time again, about their true allegiance. They actually support fuel taxes because they do not want people to fuel up their cars. Steven Guilbeault, a former Liberal cabinet minister, said opposing the carbon tax is a plan “to let the planet burn. It is immoral.” This is what we get from these Liberals who, when it is politically to their advantage, decide to pretend that they are actually against the carbon tax and that they are actually against fuel taxes. A fuel tax is a tax on productivity. It is a tax on anything that needs to be shipped. It is a tax on groceries. It is a tax on transport. It is a tax on literally anything in a productive society, but when Liberals see taxes, they see opportunity. Funnily enough, going back to April, when we were calling on the Liberal government to cut fuel taxes, the Minister of Jobs and Families rose in the chamber and saw dollar signs. She said there was “a generational windfall.” Her response in question period to my colleague, the deputy leader of the Conservative Party, was that Liberals would spend the money better than Conservatives would. That is what the Liberals see. They see opportunities. They see Canadians as a cash cow, while Canadians see a life that is unaffordable and has only gotten less and less affordable under the Liberals. That is why we reiterate our call to eliminate all federal taxes on fuel. We think it should go until at least Canada Day, but I would personally say that we need to be looking at ways to get federal fuel taxes off entirely. This is a lever the government has at its disposal. It is a direct way to make life more affordable for Canadians and to ease the pressure, not just on rural Canadians, but on industry, students, single parents, seniors and anyone who needs fuel to live, either directly or indirectly. This is common sense. The Liberals have already come part of the way. Why do they not come the whole way? Why do they not actually take a stand for a real, concrete affordability measure that would support Canadians where they are right now? This is where I go back to my thesis from the beginning of my comments. The Liberals have to be dragged kicking and screaming into doing the right thing. This was true with the consumer carbon tax, and it is true with the federal fuel excise tax holiday. It will probably be true with the industrial carbon tax. At some point, they will come along with us because they realize the error of their ways, and they will pretend that they were with us the whole time. Ironically, gaslighting comes without a carbon tax when the Liberals do it. I do not know how they have managed to make that work, but why do they take so long? I do not know if it is that they had to see the polling. I do not know if it is that they were waiting to find out if it was politically to their advantage, but it is the right thing to do. It is interesting that all the deficit hawks somehow emerge from the Liberal benches when we start talking about the need to give Canadians a break on fuel. These folks are nowhere to be seen when the Prime Minister is posting $70-billion dollar deficits. They do not care about the deficit then. Just to pre-empt a potential question that may come from one of my colleagues opposite, this is because of heightened fuel prices due to things that are matters outside the government’s control. No one is claiming the government is responsible for some of the global factors, but it is responsible for taxes. This is because of a sudden surge in prices, which means that the fuel tax revenue the government is going to get was never actually budgeted for. Unless the government’s previous budget was based around this war, which I do not think it was, the government never foresaw the increase in fuel revenue, so it is not actually hurting the government coffers, of which there is a lot that needs to be trimmed, but that is a topic for another day. This measure would not actually hurt the government coffers, but not doing it is hurting Canadians. Not doing it is putting pressure and strain on families who already cannot withstand it. I mentioned earlier today in the House a story that was actually very difficult for me to hear. It was not as difficult as it was for the people sharing it. A group of seniors I met with spoke about the fact that they are literally skipping meals because of food affordability problems, and ever since I posted that clip on social media, I have had other people reach out to share very similar things, heartbreaking things. They are the human faces that go along with the stats we have seen about the millions and millions of Canadians who are now using food banks, who have never before had to. People who are employed, people who have jobs and careers, are finding that that is not enough to survive in Canada after 11 years of the Liberals, who do not put affordability front and centre, who are not devoted to saving Canadians money, who are not putting forward a concrete plan to save Canadian jobs and who are following their Prime Minister, the very model of all talk and no results. The results are that the Liberals have to put forward this bill because they have failed Canadians. The Liberals have to put forward this bill because Canadians cannot afford the price at the fuel pumps after the Liberals have driven up the cost of absolutely everything. We are the party that is fighting for Canadians. We are the party that is fighting for Canada. We are the party that is going to make sure that fuel taxes are not driving more people into untenable situations with household finances that are sending them to the food bank. It is a sad reality that most people would never have thought possible in a G7 country, that food bank stats would become the norm. We are not even surprised. The Liberals smirk and chuckle when we raise them because it is just window dressing to them, but we will continue to stand up for that. I want to say to the Liberals now that I would be happy to support any measure that saves working Canadians money, but I want to know, if they are going to take our policy on this, why they are not taking the whole thing. They should get rid of the federal fuel taxes once and for all, not just for a few months, but in a way that is meaningful in the long term. If it is right for Canadians now, it is right for Canadians always.”

“We should remove this fuel tax permanently, not temporarily. Having to debate and renew this pause every few months wastes time that we could spend fixing other problems.”

“Mr. Speaker, I was really struck by my colleague’s remarks, particularly his remarks near the end of his speech about how, if it is right for Canadians now, then why would the Liberals not go the whole way and take the tax off permanently? The reason that resonated with me so much is that there is a cost to uncertainty. We are here in the House renewing this exemption, and it has been admitted today that we may be doing it again and again. With there being so much to accomplish in the House, I am wondering if my colleague would expand a bit on his remarks and talk about some of the other things we could do for Canadians if we did not have to come back to spend a day on this topic every three months.”

“Businesses cannot plan ahead when fuel taxes keep changing. The government needs to give Canadians real, permanent relief instead of small, temporary fixes.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith has been doing tremendous work on the affordability file, and it is an honour to be sitting near her once again in my new seat in the chamber. Stability is absolutely important. I have already heard from businesses that have dealt with the lack of ability by the Liberals and the Prime Minister to get a deal that will protect Canadian jobs. They are already having trouble planning ahead with not knowing what tariffs and countertariffs are going to be in front of them. Fuel costs are another great example of this. They do not know how to possibly budget for something when the Liberal government is trying to provide this incremental approach without dealing with the totality of the problem. What I said in my initial remarks holds true here. Governments need to use every lever available to them to protect affordability for Canadians. The government is only pushing that lever just a bit and not telling Canadians what they can expect in the future.”

“The member from Winnipeg North used to attack us for opposing the carbon tax. Now the Liberals want credit for cutting fuel taxes. They have no credibility. The Liberals should support our position so Canadians can get a tax break.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am a student of history, and I have really venerated this chamber. I have a great deal of respect for the loquaciousness of my colleague from Winnipeg North. For example, in December 2023, he said that anyone who opposed the carbon tax was “far right”. In February 2024, he said Conservatives were “climate deniers” for opposing the carbon tax, and later on that same day, he said opposing the carbon tax meant we wanted to let her rip. I do not know what he meant by “let her rip”, but I think he was catastrophizing about something that the Liberals are now claiming credit for. They have no credibility on this issue whatsoever. The sooner they come around to our position, the sooner Canadians will get the break they deserve.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 0 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The Prime Minister says he supports pipelines in Alberta, but he opposes them in British Columbia. His party is split on the issue. He does not get anything done because taking action would force him to pick a side.”

“Mr. Speaker, whatever our policy disagreements, I know that my colleague is tremendously consistent and clear in her position, which, as she alludes to, is more than can be said for the Liberals. The Prime Minister is for pipelines in Alberta and is against them in British Columbia. He has people in his caucus who are very much against pipelines and others who claim they have turned over a new leaf. Sooner or later, Canadians are going to wonder where the results are. The reason the Prime Minister is all talk and no results is that delivering results will mean having to pick a side on these contradictory positions. I am glad there is some moral clarity on this issue from one side of the aisle. We are certainly not getting it from the Liberals.”

“I want the member to answer my question. This bill cuts the fuel tax. How does collecting less tax pay for all the government programs and help for businesses that she claims it does?”

“Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member opposite’s comments. I am sure she read the bill, as it is only a few lines long. She said that it would help all these different programs across government and supply all these things, yet when we look at what it would do, it would just not take more tax from Canadians. Can the member opposite tell me how not taking more tax would actually support building more businesses, help people get back to work and support all the social programs she mentioned? I cannot quite follow the logic when we have all this extra spending, yet we are just taking less tax and are helping people not spend as much at the pumps.”

“The government admits that high fuel prices hurt people and that the problem is not going away. I want to know why they are only offering short-term relief instead of a permanent fix.”

“Mr. Speaker, as I have said a few times today, it is heartening to hear my colleagues across the aisle recognize that diesel and gas prices have an impact on affordability. It is good of them to recognize that their constituents are calling for this kind of relief. I wonder why they are again resorting to short-term measures. They have acknowledged that this is a conflict that is not going away, that has an impact. They have acknowledged the need to work on the things they can control. Why stop here?”

“I support cutting the fuel tax because high fuel prices make food more expensive. Food has to travel far in Canada, and diesel prices are up 75% this year. I want the government to make this tax cut last for years instead of just a few months so businesses can plan.”

“Mr. Speaker, like lasagna or moussaka, food prices are built in layers. Four cents of excise tax sits on top of a freight surcharge, which is layered on top of additional labelling requirements, new packaging restrictions and the cost of fertilizer, refrigeration, shipping, tariffs and taxes. No single cost explains the whole grocery bill, but the grocery bill comes at the end of a long conveyor belt, and every additional cost placed on that belt eventually moves toward the consumer. At a time of record food bank use, when those of us who shop animatedly compare prices with each other in disbelief, when people are skipping meals to save money, we owe it to Canadians to ask what every decision we make in this place means for the cost of food. When the Prime Minister claims, as he did in this chamber on March 25, that “Affordability is the best it has been in over a decade”, it is clear to me that he has not been to the grocery store. Food prices are now 29% higher than they were five years ago, while they rose only 9% over the previous five years. If we feel like food inflation has accelerated, that is because it has. Bill C-38 is a very short bill that would do three things. It would extend the fuel tax holiday on gasoline, avgas and diesel until January 31, 2027; it would bring back half the normal rate from February 1 to March 31; and then it would restore the full tax on April 1, 2027. I support this relief, but I think it should not be fleeting. The cycle of providing temporary relief, panicking at the expiry date and extending it for a few more months leaves too many businesses wondering what will happen next. Diesel prices are already extraordinarily volatile. Statistics Canada reported on September 17 that producer prices for diesel rose 9.6% in August alone and were 75% higher than a year ago. These are enormous movements in the price of an essential business input. Now, Ottawa cannot set the world price of oil. Parliament cannot legislate peace in the Middle East or guarantee the price of a barrel of crude next spring, but when the market is unstable, there is an even greater responsibility for government to provide stability in the things that it does control. Nowhere is that more important than in food. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada estimates that transportation accounts for seven cents of every dollar Canadians spend on domestically produced food. The comparable figure in the United States is less than five cents. This is because Canada has longer distances, a more dispersed population and a climate that requires us to move food enormous distances, particularly through the winter. Fuel prices, therefore, have a direct relationship with the cost of feeding our country. We see this in my home communities on Vancouver Island. Out here, people speak of planes, trains and automobiles, while in B.C., we also have seaplanes, helicopters and ferries to contend with. Much of our food arrives after travelling by truck, rail, ship or some combination of the three. There is always another transportation leg before it reaches a grocery store in Nanaimo, Ladysmith or Gabriola. The cost of diesel, therefore, enters our food system long before the produce truck arrives at the grocery store loading dock. Farmers use diesel to fuel their equipment during planting and harvest. Ingredients travel to processors. Packaging has to be manufactured and delivered. Warehouses consume energy. Refrigerated warehouses consume even more energy. Finished products travel to distribution centres, grocery stores, restaurants and institutions. I am chairing a national food affordability task force, and I heard about the cost of diesel at every farm, every processor and every grocer I visited this summer. High diesel costs have a cascading effect across the supply chain, and uncertainty amplifies that effect. The Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University has found that diesel and grocery prices have moved remarkably closely together over the last 30 years. That does not mean diesel alone determines the price of food, but it confirms what anyone involved in the food supply chain already knows, which is that energy and transportation costs, that is, gasoline, aviation gasoline and diesel, are deeply connected to what Canadians eventually pay at the grocery store. The Dalhousie lab has modelled what the present diesel shock could mean. If high prices persist through the winter, grocery inflation could peak between one-half and seven-tenths of a percentage point higher. A shorter-lived spike could produce an effect closer to three-tenths or four-tenths of a point. Either way, it is going to cost us. The Dalhousie analysis works the diesel and other cost shocks through contracts, inventories and the supply chain over many months and provides a solid basis for believing, as many members have said today when answering questions and in their remarks, that the government will need to extend this measure again and, very possibly, again. We spend enormous effort in this place debating grocery prices after they have risen. We need to start thinking about affordability problems before they show up at the checkout because uncertainty and volatility have a price. Businesses protect themselves against it through shorter contracts, larger contingencies, higher working capital requirements or delayed investment. Smaller businesses generally have fewer ways to hedge their exposure and less balance sheet capacity to absorb a sudden change. Dalhousie’s agri-food lab has highlighted precisely that vulnerability among smaller processors and independent distributors as one of the many explanations for why we are experiencing food inflation. As well, there is a broader principle here that does not depend on agreement about the ultimate tax rate. If the policy objective is to hold this tax at zero while energy markets remain severely disrupted, then why do we not give businesses a horizon measured in years rather than in weeks or months? Our food costs would really benefit from that. A government faced with volatile markets should be trying to reduce uncertainty, not add another layer to it. The Prime Minister talks a lot about the things we can control. Well, government taxation is one of those things. Not every increase in food prices has the same cause, and government cannot control all of them, but where government itself is adding cost or uncertainty, we have an obligation and an opportunity to act. Agriculture and food businesses experience individual departmental policy decisions cumulatively. That means they pay the transportation cost, the packaging cost, the tariff, the regulatory cost, the energy cost and the tax at the same time. Each department may conclude that its individual measure may have a modest effect, but grocery costs do not stay nicely in departmental silos, and the cost of the whole is sometimes more than its parts. The final price reflects the entire supply chain and all of the policy changes along the way. Canada will always be a country in which food travels considerable distances. Diesel and avgas are critical inputs. Temporary relief can buy time. We should use that time. Four cents a litre is only one layer in the price of food, but it is a layer entirely within Parliament’s control. When diesel prices are already up 75% in a year, we should be looking for layers we can take off, not deciding when to put them back on. I support the relief contained in Bill C-38. I would like us to go further, however, and provide the long-term certainty that lets businesses plan.”

“We are extending this fuel tax break because Conservatives pushed for it again and again. We keep speaking up for people in our communities who cannot afford high costs.”

“Mr. Speaker, I feel as though I should buy a lottery ticket. Thank you for those kind words, and thank you for the recognition that we are here today extending this relief to Canadians because Conservatives have pushed this point over and over again. It is because we continue to bring up affordability, we continue to focus on the people we serve in our communities and we continue to bring their stories to the House over and over again. I would say that it is wonderful to work together, but I would like to see you paying—”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 0 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 government should listen to our ideas and make this fuel tax cut permanent.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is very late, and I apologize for not speaking through you. I have the utmost respect for you, both as a person and as an institution. I would say to the members opposite that the best ideas never rise to the top without debate and without listening. The government pushed a lot of things through in the spring. I would urge it to take the time to listen and to allow us to do our job as the opposition, which is to provide constructive commentary that hopefully helps the government see that it could do more. In this case, that is extending the excise tax relief more permanently.”

“The government chose to run a $78-billion deficit and spend even more money after the budget. At the same time, high gas prices are bringing in extra tax money. I want my colleague to say more about how these government choices hurt Canadians.”

“Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague’s wonderful speech, and I would like her to expand a bit on something. She said that a lot of what government does is control what it can control, which has a big effect. The Liberals have a $78-billion deficit and had an extra $6-billion-plus in spending after they came out with the budget, so they have controlled a lot of what they are going to spend. Meanwhile, they are kind of ignoring the extra GST and the extra oil revenues from the high prices of gas and oil, which they are consuming. This could go a lot further if they intended. Can you expand on how the Liberals’ choices are affecting our citizens?”

“I want this fuel tax cut passed and made permanent. Temporary cuts leave too much uncertainty for businesses like farms, trucking companies, and grocery distributors. Permanent tax relief will help them plan ahead and invest.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am glad that my colleague brought up the concept of control. One reason we want the gas tax relief extended and made permanent is so we can give businesses the chance to exercise that control themselves. We know that farmers plan around growing seasons. I have, of course, spoken to farmers who tell me over and over again that energy costs are hampering their ability to plan. Trucking companies negotiate contracts, but their margins are so slim that they are struggling to stay afloat, and certainty around the cost of fuel for the long term would make a big difference. Grocery distributors build networks, but changing buying patterns based on volatile pricing is actually messing with inventory levels and even creating extra food waste. Processors make investments that they have to pay for over years, and uncertainty is making them blink, which is stifling innovation and further impeding productivity. The government talks about wanting to control the things that we can control. Relieving the tax burden on a permanent basis would not only allow us to control the things that we need to control but would also allow businesses to plan.”

• 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 just got back from overseas. I want to know if any of the countries he visited produce their own oil and still tax fuel for their citizens like Canada does.”

“Mr. Speaker, I have to comment on the member opposite’s speech. I felt as though I was listening to a radio. He has a great radio voice. I actually was captivated by some of his comments. In one of them, he said he has just returned from overseas. I would like to ask whether any of the countries he visited were actually oil-producing countries that were taxing their citizens on the fuel they have, compared to importing it. These other countries, I am assuming, were actually importing all their oil and not benefiting from oil they have in their own country. Does any other country you visited actually have a fuel excise tax for its citizens?”

“I will vote for this bill because Canadians need a break on fuel costs. But it does not go far enough. The government should extend fuel tax relief until at least Canada Day, permanently scrap clean fuel rules, and end the industrial carbon tax.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-38 and to the very real issue at the heart of this legislation, which is affordability. For more than a generation, tax policy has been designed to effect social policy. Taxes have been designed to curb our citizens’ behaviour, not to benefit taxpayers. Tax policy has not been developed for what is best for the long-term future of Canadians. When taxes interfere with people’s way of life, making it cost more to buy food, get to work or go to medical appointments, there is something wrong with our tax system. For families in Alberta and right across Canada, affordability is not an abstract economic concept. It is the price at the gas pump. It is the grocery store bill, the cost of getting to work, the cost of moving a truckload of farm products. It is the cost of building a home. For many Albertans, it is simply a question of whether they can afford to drive the distances that life in a large, rural and resource-producing province requires. That is why the government’s decision to extend the federal fuel excise tax suspension matters. However, it is also why we have to look carefully at how we got here and what happens next. Conservatives have been raising this issue for months in the House. During question period back in April, actually on my birthday, I asked the question as to whether the government would extend the suspension of the excise tax until the end of the year. The Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience refused to commit to any relief for Canadians beyond September 7. If the Liberals had dealt with the issue back in the spring, we would not be here today having the same conversation. Are we going to have to do this again next January, when the government realizes the suspension is not enough again? I think all members would appreciate not having to repeat the same debate a third time and would ask the Liberals to consider extending this suspension until Canada Day. We pushed the Liberals to cut the tax. Then we pushed them to stop taking that relief away, but it needs to go further. Mind you, our proposal in April went beyond just the excise tax. We also called for the suspension of the GST on gasoline and diesel, the removal of costs associated with the clean fuel regulations, and the elimination of the industrial carbon tax. The government, however, chose a much narrower measure, by suspending only the federal excise tax. Its own figures estimate that this measure would provide more than $2.4 billion in relief. Now, after that temporary measure was scheduled to expire, the government is looking to extend it. Bill C-38 would keep the federal excise tax suspended through to January 2027, and in February and March the tax would return at half the regular rate. On April 1, April Fool’s Day next year, the regular federal excise tax rate would return. It is not a joke. That means about 10¢ per litre on gasoline and 4¢ on diesel. If lowering the fuel tax provides significant relief today, why should Canadians automatically face the full tax again on April 1? Why does the government continue to ignore Canadians who are in desperate need of help? As we debate Bill C-38, I want to take this opportunity to speak about the issue that touches every Canadian, every working family and every business in this country. As the only chartered professional accountant with tax experience in the House of Commons, I understand both the importance and the complexity of the different layers Canadians have to deal with in tax. Canada’s tax system has become far too complicated. For too many Canadians, understanding their tax obligation requires navigating a maze of rules, exemptions, credits, deductions and administrative requirements. That complexity comes at a cost. It consumes valuable time and resources for families and businesses. It creates uncertainty for those trying to invest in and plan for the future, and it makes it harder for Canadians to understand how much they are actually paying in tax. A reform of our tax system is not simply about changing the tax rate. It is about building a system that is simpler, more transparent and more fair, one that Canadians can understand and businesses can navigate with confidence. Canadian workers and businesses deserve a tax system that rewards hard work rather than making it harder to get ahead. Small businesses, in particular, need a system that allows them to spend less time dealing with paperwork and more time creating jobs, investing in their communities and growing their businesses. Our tax system should work for Canadians, not the other way around. What is most frustrating with the bill is that the government originally described it as temporary relief. Now it is extending that relief, and I would not be surprised if next year we are back, having to extend it again. The original suspension was supposed to end two weeks ago. Instead, the government is now rushing to extend it through the end of next January and will then phase the tax back in the following two months. That change reflects the economic circumstances Canadians are currently facing. It also reflects the fact that the affordability problem did not disappear when the temporary measure was scheduled to expire, two weeks ago. The government has recognized that, and I think Canadians will thank them for it. The question now is whether the extension is sufficient. For many Canadians, particularly those who drive long distances or operate businesses dependent on transportation, the answer will depend on what happens after March 31, because the reality of fuel costs in Canada will not suddenly disappear on April 1. We also need to recognize the role fuel plays in Canada’s competitiveness. Transportation is not an optional part of our economy. It is fundamental to it. When the costs of moving goods rise, businesses face higher operating costs. When transportation costs rise, competitiveness suffers. Regardless of the current political climate, we are still very much competing with the United States, which does not have the layers of taxes and bureaucracy that we do here at home. This is just one more chip away at our global competitiveness, and Canadian businesses are suffering as a result. Another idea we may want to consider is permanently removing the excise tax on Canadian petroleum products to benefit Canadian companies. That is why fuel tax policy is about more than what someone sees at the gas pump. It is also about the cost of moving the Canadian economy. The House should not stop asking questions simply because the government has taken one step. We should be asking what happens next. We should be asking what relief will continue. We should ask how federal tax policies affect the cost of transportation. We should ask how those costs move through the supply chains, and we should ask whether Canadians can realistically afford this tax’s return in April 2027. Conservatives have been raising these issues for months. The government has now extended a measure that it originally described as temporary, and that is why Bill C-38 matters, but this debate should not end with the passage of the temporary extension. The bill is needed. No one is doubting that. Canadians need this relief at the pumps, but there is more we can do. There is more we need to do. We need to continue pushing to remove all federal taxes on gas and diesel until at least Canada Day next year; we need to permanently scrap the clean fuel regulations, and we need to remove the industrial carbon tax, so Canadians can save approximately 25¢ per litre. On this side of the House, we are committed to continuing this fight, and we hope to continue making measurable progress. At the end of the day, the bill would be good for Canadians, and for that reason, I will be supporting it. Canadians deserve an economy where working, producing, transporting and building are affordable.”

“We will keep questioning this bill and asking where tax relief is for Canadians. We cannot compare Canada to Norway, because Norway has much higher income and corporate taxes. This debate is about our own choices on how much we spend and tax.”

“Mr. Speaker, I have made that mistake many a time tonight, I know, and eventually I will break that habit, I am sure. The Conservatives will continue to scrutinize measures and continue to raise the concerns we have heard from Albertans and Canadians, who continue to ask the government where their temporary reliefs are. Comparing ourselves to many of the other countries is quite difficult when we compare our tax system, especially when we look at, as the member opposite brought up, Norway. Norway may have an excise tax that it has changed, but Norway has a completely different system, in which their personal individual tax and their corporate taxes are much higher than what we have in Canada. Their system is going to be looking at quite a difference in terms of what they actually spend on. However, this goes back to our choices, which is what we are debating here in the House. It is about the choices that we are going to make, going forward, on what we are spending and how we are taxing our citizens.”

• 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 →

“I want to ask my colleague if he thinks the Liberals copied our ideas with this bill.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my hon. colleague whether he thinks the Liberals have plagiarized our playbook with this bill.”

“This bill is a Conservative win. We pushed to pause the fuel tax from the start, and the Liberals copied our idea. We will keep fighting to make life more affordable.”

“Mr. Speaker, as Conservatives, we are proud of the role we played in securing this win. I feel like this is a win on the Conservative side. We have never stopped fighting, and we will not stop fighting, for more affordability measures. We pushed for this at the beginning, and we actually achieved what we wanted back in April. That part of it has been very beneficial. Yes, the Liberals are plagiarizing our playbook, as the member said.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 0 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 →
• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I support tax cuts, but this fuel tax break ends too soon. People need more than six months of certainty to plan their lives and work. We need to extend this tax relief past April.”

“Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we are definitely in favour of any tax relief. However, because it is going to come back in April, given the way it is proposed, it does not really help with long-term certainty. Knowing what is going on for the next six months will help with some planning, but people need to plan far beyond six months for their future, whether it is for work or for what they are going to be doing for the next year. It is very important that the measures are extended past April.”