“I want this bill passed to help Canadians with the cost of gas. All parties worked together to pass it today. I want the member to talk about what we can achieve when we cooperate.”

“Mr. Speaker, the excise tax on gasoline has been a very high priority for the Prime Minister and the government in recognizing the issue of affordability. It is an important aspect that the government is wanting to pass. I want to extend my gratitude and recognize that we could not be passing it today without the collaboration of all members of the House of Commons. We see that the value is really for Canadians. It is a very important part of what the Prime Minister and the government as a whole have been talking about, so I want to express some appreciation for the collaboration. I think it is important to do so. I would just like to get the member’s comments about how we can do some wonderful things if in fact we want to work together to deliver for Canadians.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 41 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 →

“I want the House to pass this bill. It pauses the federal fuel tax until 2027 to lower gas prices and help Canadians with the high cost of living.”

“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your allowing me to speak to Bill C-38, the Canadian fuel affordability act. While Canada is starting from a position of strength, the global economy is becoming increasingly uncertain. New and unjustified tariffs, trade tensions, and conflicts in the Middle East and Europe are driving up costs for households and businesses and are creating economic uncertainty here at home for all Canadians. Our government recognizes this and is taking action to help Canadians manage rising costs and navigate these global economic uncertainties. Earlier this year, we temporarily suspended the federal fuel excise tax, saving Canadians and Canadian businesses 10¢ per litre on gasoline and 11¢ per litre on leaded aviation fuel. The impact was immediate, with gasoline prices declining by 11¢ per litre on the first day of implementation. That was real relief for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Building on our decision earlier this month, the Minister of Finance and National Revenue announced our intention to extend that temporary suspension until January 31, 2027, and apply 50% of the regular excise tax rate from February 1 through March 31, 2027. That means that Canadians in my riding of Mississauga—Lakeshore on the shores of the great Lake Ontario would benefit with extended relief and continued cost reduction per litre for gasoline and diesel. Let me be clear: This measure would help lower costs for Canadians, including truckers and businesses in the food and agriculture, housing, construction and delivery sectors. This is another example of our government’s delivering timely and meaningful relief when Canadians need it most. By reducing pressure on gasoline and diesel prices, we would be helping Canadians manage today’s challenges, while laying the foundation for longer-term growth and prosperity as we build on the strongest economy in the G7. This is just one part of a broader effort to lower costs for Canadians. It is one of the first measures our government took after assuming office. Members opposite will recall that one of the first things the Prime Minister did upon assuming office was to cancel the consumer fuel charge, helping Canadians to save money at the pump in most provinces and territories. Our government also removed the requirement for provinces and territories to have a consumer-facing carbon price as of April 1, 2025. At the same time, our government recognizes that affordability challenges extend well beyond the cost of fuel, and that is why we have taken additional steps to put money, and more money, back into Canadians’ pockets. For example, we introduced the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit. By building on the former goods and services tax credit, we are increasing the amount provided to low- and modest-income Canadians by 25% for the first five years, as of July, 2026. In addition to that, we provided a one-time payment in June, equivalent to 50% of increases in 2025-26, with an annual value of the GST credit. Our government is responding to global challenges with a responsible and pragmatic fiscal approach. It is important to note that while we may not control every global event, with respect to the ones that are impacting prices, I want to assure my hon. colleagues and all Canadians that our government is doing what is necessary to take and make a deal that helps those impacts. By lowering costs for Canadians from coast to coast to coast, the government is providing supports to their affordability challenge while creating an economy where Canadians have more control in building their own future. Above all, these government measures will empower Canadians to get ahead and minimize the impacts on their cost of living. Canadians naturally want to keep more of the money they earn. They want greater opportunities to support their families, invest in their communities and build their future with confidence. Our country is at a crossroads. Many people around the world choose Canada. New Canadians are seeking freedom and opportunity. Throughout history, Canadians have proven themselves to be resilient, to overcome adversity, and over the years, they have grown more prosperous. They will continue to build. We will persevere, more united than ever, to protect our sovereignty and strengthen its resolve. Standing together, we are navigating this crossroads. I returned recently from overseas, and I had witnessed many around the world celebrating Canada’s standing. The Prime Minister is sought after for his leadership and experience, just as much as Canada is sought after for its critical minerals and untapped potential. Canada is valued as a trusted partner that abides by the rule of law and social justice. As chair of the defence committee, I can attest that boosting Canada’s defence industrial strategy is renewing our confidence while stimulating our economy. More than that, it bolsters our national pride. Events recently, such as the major attraction at the investment summit, speak volumes. They will enable major projects and build our economy, which sustains and supports the social programs Canadians rely on and expect. Just as the EU and so many around the world welcome Canada, we welcome every effort to broaden our reach and foster relations to reduce geopolitical threats that have impacted price challenges here at home. This bill would help support Canadians, and I hope my colleagues will support this measure for the greater benefit of all 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 →

“European countries tax fuel too, and gas is much more expensive there than in Canada. Those countries also lead the world in using wind, solar, and other clean energy.”

“Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes reference to excise taxes in other parts of the world. Most European countries, which is where I was, actually do have excise taxes on their fuel. In fact, fuel was much more expensive than it is here at home in Canada. More importantly than that, the countries I was in were also harnessing renewable energy. They are at the forefront of some of the most critical measures to foster wind power and solar power. They are relying so much more on other energy sources. To answer the member’s question, they in fact have very high excise taxes on their fuel.”

“When I was in Ontario's government, we moved away from coal power. It cost a lot, but it cut emissions and helped our economy in the long run. I agree we need to do more on climate change, and our government wants to build green energy too.”

“Mr. Speaker, during the time I was there, provincially we did quite a bit to decarbonize Ontario’s reliance on coal. We became one of the lowest-emitting provinces as a result of those measures. We tried to do everything we could to modernize that system, which was expensive but long-term and has great benefits to the overall costs and to the climate. We were trying to make our green energy process an economic process with greater long-term benefits. I value the member’s question. I value her desire to have us do more in that regard, and I know that the Prime Minister also has a great desire for climate initiatives to harness green energy alongside the things we are doing as an energy superpower.”

• 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 →

“Our government is working hard to make life more affordable. This bill helps by cutting the fuel tax by 10 cents a litre, and then by 5 cents a litre after January. I want my colleague to share his thoughts on this.”

“Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could provide his thoughts on what has been a very important issue, that of affordability, and on how the Prime Minister and the government as a whole have taken on the issue, wanting to be able to deliver on it in many different forms. This is a very important step, with Bill C-38 giving that 10¢-a-litre extension in terms of a break. Once we hit the end of January, it goes to 5¢ a litre. It is one part of a much bigger picture of the very important issue of affordability. Could the member provide his thoughts on that?”

“This bill is just one part of our plan to lower costs for Canadians. We are also cutting taxes, dropping the tax on fuel, and helping people pay for food, child care, and dental care.”

“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the parliamentary secretary’s initiative around looking at this as a wholesome package. Bill C-38 is only a portion of the work that is being done by the government to lower overall costs and improve affordability measures for Canadians, including introducing the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, cutting taxes for 22 million Canadians, providing and eliminating the goods and services tax for first-time homebuyers, cancelling the federal consumer carbon tax, making the national school food program permanent, introducing automatic federal benefits, lowering costs and strengthening competition for essential services, expanding and entrenching the Canada child benefit, lowering costs for child care and kids’ essential services, like the $10-a-day child care and interest-free student loans, for that matter, and the Canadian dental care plan—”

“Most countries dealing with high fuel costs have not cut their fuel taxes. Only a few, like Norway and Germany, tried it. I want the member to consider these examples and tell us what other ideas Canada should learn from.”

“Mr. Speaker, recently I came back from a G20 meeting held by the world’s largest crude oil producer, the United States, where there is a combined excise tax in Texas of 38¢ a gallon. Countries everywhere are struggling with the global effects of this war. They are exploring different ways to do this. Most have not eliminated excise taxes or even reduced them. The only two I am aware of in addition to Canada are Norway, which brought its tax back at the end of summer, on August 31, and Germany, which has reduced its tax until December. I am wondering if you consider those lessons and you think about them and the implication of these policies. When you look further abroad, are there other affordability policies you think we can learn from or that Canada should consider?”

“We cannot control global energy prices, but we can help Canadians with the cost. Extending the pause on the fuel tax through the winter helps families plan their travel costs. Does the member agree?”

“Mr. Speaker, Canada cannot control the global forces driving up energy prices, but we can control how we are responding. Our plan balances support for Canadians without compromising our fiscal position. Does the member opposite agree that extending the suspension through the winter would give Canadians greater certainty in managing their household transportation costs?”

• Echo ×3

  A repeated line

  “We cannot control the global forces driving up prices.”

  Said 3 times by 3 members since September 22.

  Every time it was said →

“I am glad the Conservatives are supporting this bill to save people money. But the member who just spoke voted against tax cuts, school food, and cheaper child care. How can she say she cares about the cost of living when she voted against all those things?”

“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear my colleague mention that, for once, the Conservatives will support a measure that will put money back in Canadians’ pockets. However, I cannot help but note some hypocrisy in my colleague’s speech. She mentioned that affordability should not be simply a slogan. However, when we look at her voting record, we see that she voted against almost all of the measures that we put in place to help Canadians deal with the cost of living, including the tax cut for over 21 million Canadians, the school food program, which has become permanent, and affordable child care spaces, to name just a few. Does my colleague not see a major discrepancy between her voting record and what she is saying this evening about the importance of affordability? How does she reconcile what she said in her speech with her past actions, with the way she voted in the House?”

“We took action by funding food in schools and cutting taxes for 21 million people. The member voted against these measures. I want her to explain why she says she wants to help people when she voted against helping them.”

“Mr. Speaker, in her response to my question, my colleague talked about the need for more doing and less talking. However, over the past year and a half, we have implemented meaningful measures. We have made Canada’s national school food program permanent. We have lowered taxes for more than 21 million Canadians. That is in addition to all the other measures we implemented in budget 2025 and the economic update. Still, when we rolled out these meaningful measures—not just empty words—to help put more money in Canadians’ pockets, my colleague voted against them. I am just trying to square that with what we heard tonight. I completely agree with her that we need to be there for ordinary folks, but how does she reconcile what she said tonight with her voting record?”

• 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 →

“Some members want this fuel tax relief to be permanent. But the economy is uncertain, and we cannot predict what will happen in six months. I want the member to explain how we can make long-term plans with so much uncertainty.”

“Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague’s comments related to honey. In my own family, we do, as a hobby, produce honey and maple syrup so his comments were very relevant to me. I do appreciate the need for labelling to say that things come from Canada, so well said. Tonight we heard many comments from our colleagues across the aisle about the fact that it would be great if the relief were more permanent or if it could be extended. For me, the question is around the uncertainty. We did not know six months ago where we would be today and we do not know where we will be in six months. I would like to hear the member’s comments about how we can fix things in the longer term when there is so much uncertainty.”

“I want to ask the member what Parliament can do to support local producers like the honey producer they mentioned. Sometimes fake honey is sold as real honey, and I want to hear their ideas on how to fix that.”

“Mr. Speaker, I listened intently, and I was quite intrigued by the story the member shared about the honey producer. It is remarkable to learn about some of the things that you are interested in. I want to ask something a little related to what you talked about but different from this specific legislation. If you were to suggest something that we could do as a Parliament, as government, to support producers like the one you referred to, the honey producers, for example, who are growing locally, what would you suggest? Sometimes we do end up with products that are not actual honey, for example, and it would be great to have some ideas on that.”

“Canadians want us to make the economy stronger. We need to trade with Europe as well as the United States, and we need to make life more affordable with bills like this one. The Conservatives usually vote against helping people with costs. Does the member agree we should focus on building the economy instead of just talking?”

“Mr. Speaker, the content of my Conservative colleagues’ speeches will never cease to surprise me, I think, because there seems to be a real disconnect between what they say and reality. The reality is that Canadians expect us to work to make the economy stronger and more resilient. That means diversifying our economic partnerships abroad. We need to maintain a relationship with the United States, but we also need to look at how we can diversify markets elsewhere, including in Europe. That also means implementing affordability measures, like the one we are discussing this evening. It must be a bit strange for my colleague to vote in favour of an affordability measure, since the Conservatives always vote against such measures. This time, they are going to make an exception. I think Canadians can see through the official opposition. The results of the last six by-elections speak for themselves. Canadians see that our plan to make the economy stronger and more resilient is working. Does my colleague agree that Canadians want us to truly work on making the Canadian economy stronger and that we need to stop this type of rhetoric that has no basis in reality?”

“This bill helps Canadians save money by extending the fuel tax break. Even one of the member's own colleagues called this an amazing idea. I want to know if he will support this bill and our other plans to help with the cost of living.”

“Mr. Speaker, this evening, the bill we are considering is a straightforward measure. It is about affordability. It is about extending the fuel tax break. It is a measure that will put more money in Canadians’ pockets. My colleague did not say much about it in his speech, but earlier, my colleague from Peace River—Westlock said that it was a good bill. He even described extending the fuel tax break as an amazing idea. How does my colleague feel about finally supporting a measure that actually helps with affordability? During this session, can we expect to see him supporting the measures we are putting in place to help Canadians with affordability? Can we expect to see him support what his colleague described as the amazing work our government is doing to help with affordability and to make the economy stronger and more resilient?”

“This debate is about affordability. The member says he cares about lower costs, but he spent the last year and a half voting against our tax cuts and our school food program. Why is he only supporting affordability now?”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to finish this discussion with my colleague. Tonight, we are talking about affordability; we are not discussing all the other points he could have raised in his speech. If affordability is important to him, why has he consistently voted against our measures, whether it be tax cuts for the middle class, Canada’s national school food program or all the other measures we have introduced over the last year and a half? Why has he finally decided to support affordability measures this evening when he has been voting against them for the past year and a half?”

“A past Conservative prime minister chose our Prime Minister to lead the Bank of Canada, and recently praised him. I want the member to tell us what the people in his riding think about our Prime Minister.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to a point that I think is important. My colleague commented on our Prime Minister being an adviser to a former government. I simply want to point out that he was named the governor of the Bank of Canada by a Conservative prime minister. The same Conservative prime minister, at the recent investor summit, praised our current Prime Minister in the House of Commons. I simply want to hear my colleague comment on how the citizens in his riding feel about our current Prime Minister.”

“We show real leadership by helping people with the cost of living. We brought in this bill to pause the fuel tax, along with tax cuts and school food programs. The Conservatives talk about high costs, but they vote against our help. I want to know if the member agrees this bill shows our leadership.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke of leadership in his speech. Real leadership is taking an interest in the cost of living and introducing a bill to extend the excise tax holiday in the the first week of Parliament’s return. Leadership is implementing a range of measures, as we have done since the first day we were elected, to lower taxes for the middle class, make the school food program permanent or implement various employment insurance-related measures, such as temporarily suspending the one-week waiting period. That is the kind of leadership that helps Canadians cope with the cost of living. What is not leadership is talking about affordability in the House and then voting against every single measure when the opportunity arises. I would like to know whether my colleague sees this bill as an example of our government’s ongoing leadership in helping Canadians cope with the cost of living.”

“Our plan makes the economy stronger so we can pause the fuel tax. Canadians showed they trust our plan in the last election and in recent by-elections. Does the member agree that these election results show people support our plan?”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague began his remarks by talking about the kind of society we want and what we want for our country’s future. On this side of the House, we have a plan that translates into concrete measures aimed at strengthening the Canadian economy and making it more resilient, to ensure we have a stronger Canadian economy that gives us the fiscal capacity to support measures like the one we are debating tonight, that is, extending the suspension of the excise tax. I think it is safe to say that Canadians have repeatedly demonstrated their confidence in our plan for Canada, whether during the last general election or in the six by-elections, including the most recent ones that took place over the summer. I would like to ask my colleague whether the results of the recent by-elections are a sign of the public’s confidence in our plan, particularly as it relates to building a stronger economy that meets everyone’s needs.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 43 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 →

“People in my community tell me they appreciate the Prime Minister because he understands their problems and works hard. The Conservatives talk about these problems, but they do not vote for the bills that actually help people.”

“Mr. Speaker, when I go out in my riding to talk to my community and my colleagues go out to talk to their community, one of the things we hear about is how much people appreciate a leader who understands what is going on in this country, sees the issues and does exactly what people want him to do. The Prime Minister is working hard. One of the things that fascinates me is how this government talks about some of these issues, but when it comes to supporting the bills, the legislation that actually supports people, those members are not there. Why?”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 17 of 100

  None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →
• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 33 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 member talks about people struggling with the cost of living. How does he explain voting against middle-class tax cuts, school food programs, cheap child care, and employment insurance help?”

“Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my colleague shared stories of constituents in his riding having to do with the cost of living. What does he tell people when they ask him, “Why did you vote against a tax cut that could help me if I am in the middle class? Why did you vote against the national school food program for my school-aged children? Why did you vote against affordable child care services for my children? Why did you vote against suspending the one-week waiting period for employment insurance?” When he tells us these stories, I wish I had the full picture. How does my colleague justify these votes to the constituents who come to see him to talk about the cost of living?”