“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.”

“The previous speaker talked about stability. I want him to explain how long-term certainty creates stability and makes life more affordable.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member talked about stability. I am wondering if he could elaborate on the ways in which certainty over the long term breeds stability, which breeds affordability.”

“People and businesses need to know what to expect so they can plan for the future. The government could give them that certainty if it had good policies.”

“Mr. Speaker, certainty, predictability and clarity are very important for both businesses and individuals in planning their future affairs. We need to have that. That is one thing the government could provide to citizens if it actually had a good policy going forward.”

“I support this bill to cut the tax on fuel. Life is too expensive for Canadians right now, especially for people in rural areas who have to drive to work. We want this tax cut to be permanent, but temporary relief still helps.”

“Mr. Speaker, at 10 o’clock this evening, I think it is fair to recognize, as all of us can acknowledge, that it has been a long day. Nonetheless, it is certainly very much the case that this issue is important. As we return to the House, I believe it is worth reminding ourselves of something that can be lost amid the disagreements of this place. Canadians expect us to come here not simply to argue but to deliver results. They expect us to scrutinize legislation. They expect us to ask difficult questions. They expect us, as an opposition, to hold the government to account. However, they also expect us to recognize a good idea when we see one and to work together when legislation can make life a little easier for the people we were elected to serve. That is the spirit in which we approach Bill C-38. On this side of the House, we have long said that we are prepared to support sensible measures that provide meaningful financial relief to Canadians. There is nothing contradictory about challenging legislation when we believe it falls short and supporting legislation when it moves in the right direction. That is not partisanship. That is Parliament doing its job. Bill C-38 is a measure we can support because its central objective is one that I believe members across the House should be able to agree upon: Canadians need some breathing room. Families are making very difficult choices right now. Parents are looking at the grocery bill and deciding what can wait until next week. Young Canadians are wondering whether home ownership will ever be within reach. Seniors on fixed incomes are watching every single dollar, and small business owners are absorbing higher costs whenever they can. Farmers and producers are paying to fuel the equipment and vehicles they need simply to do their jobs. Governments cannot and should not solve every challenge confronting a household, but governments can make choices that leave Canadians with more of their own money and avoid unnecessarily adding to the cost of everyday life. Of course, permanent relief is better than temporary relief, but as we return to Ottawa, members on all sides should reflect on what we heard in our communities over the summer. For me, and I suspect members from every party, one subject came up again and again, and that is affordability. People in Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga are not speaking about affordability as an abstract economic concept. They are talking about what remains in their bank accounts after their mortgage or rent is paid. They are talking about the cost of groceries, heating their homes, getting their children to hockey practices and filling the tank so they can get to work. That last expense matters enormously, especially in rural and small-town Canada. That is not to diminish the very real affordability challenges facing people in Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal or other major urban centres, but transportation looks very different outside Canada’s largest cities. For millions of Canadians, driving is not a lifestyle choice; it is a necessity. There is no subway in many locations. There may be no commuter train. In many communities, there may be little or no public transit whatsoever. The grocery store may be kilometres away. A medical appointment may require travelling to another community. Getting to work, taking a child to school or operating a farm may mean getting behind the wheel because there simply is no other practical alternative. When fuel costs rise, those Canadians cannot simply choose not to drive. They have to find the money somewhere else in their family budget. That is why federal fuel tax relief matters. The government’s temporary suspension reduced the federal excise tax by 10¢ per litre on gasoline and four cents per litre on diesel, among other fuel categories. The government itself estimated that the temporary measure would provide more than $2.4 million in tax relief in 2026. Extending that relief is therefore a step in the right direction, and Conservatives support doing so, but it also raises a reasonable question: If removing this tax temporarily provides meaningful relief to families, workers, farmers and businesses, then why should Parliament not have a serious discussion about making that very relief permanent? That is the larger conversation we believe Canadians deserve, because every single dollar matters to a household that is stretched. Ten cents on a litre may look small when written on a spreadsheet in Ottawa, but Canadians do not buy one litre of gasoline at a time. A farmer does not operate one piece of equipment for one kilometre. A tradesman does not drive up to one job site a year, and a parent in rural Canada does not make one trip to the grocery store. Those costs accumulate. So do savings when government chooses to reduce them. We would prefer permanent relief. We have been clear about that from the get-go, but we should also remember the old principle that we ought not allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good. If this legislation means Canadians keep more of what they earn, then it deserves our support. Perhaps it represents something else as well: an acknowledgement that the concerns expressed for years by rural Canadians, small-town families, farmers, tradesmen and commuters are legitimate and deserve to be heard in this very chamber. The affordability challenge, however, extends far beyond the gas pump. Statistics Canada released new results from the 2024 Canadian housing survey showing that 23.2% of Canadian households were living in housing considered unaffordable under the conventional measure of spending 30% or more of household income on shelter costs. Among renters, that figure was 33.7%. That same survey tells another troubling story. In 2018, 11.1% of Canadian households reported being dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with housing affordability. By 2022, that had risen to 14.5%. In 2024, it reached 23.3%. In other words, dissatisfaction with housing affordability more than doubled between 2018 and 2024, including an increase of 8.8 percentage points in just two years. Behind every one of those statistics is a person. It is the young couple wondering whether they should postpone starting a family because they cannot afford a larger home. It is the renter watching another lease renewal approach with anxiety. It is the family whose mortgage payment has increased and who now has to decide what else can be cut from the monthly budget. The pressure is not confined to housing. Statistics Canada reported that in the spring of 2024, 45% of Canadians said that rising prices were greatly affecting their ability to meet day-to-day expenses. That was up 33% from just two years earlier. The burden was particularly pronounced among Canadians with lower incomes. Fifty-nine per cent of people in the lowest income quintile reported being greatly affected, as did 52% in the second and 48% in the third. More than half of Canadians between the ages of 25 and 44, or 55%, said rising prices were greatly affecting their ability to meet everyday expenses. Those numbers should command the attention of every member of this House regardless of partisanship, because affordability should not be simply a slogan we deploy when convenient. It should be a test we apply to the decisions we make right here. Does a measure make it easier or harder for a Canadian family to balance its budget? Does it leave a worker with more or less money at the end of the month? Does it recognize the realities facing a farmer, a senior, a young person or someone living in a community where driving is not optional? These are practical questions, and Canadians deserve practical answers. Bill C-38 would not solve Canada’s affordability challenges. No responsible member of the House should pretend it does, but it would provide relief. It recognizes the real pressures facing Canadian households, and it moves, however incrementally, in the direction of allowing Canadians to keep more of their own money. We will continue to argue for permanent fuel tax relief. We will continue to challenge the government where we believe Canadians deserve better. That is our responsibility as His Majesty’s loyal opposition, but our responsibility is also to support measures that help Canadians when they come before the House. Canadians are making difficult choices every day. Parliament should be looking for responsible ways to make some of those choices a little less difficult. On this measure, we have the opportunity to do precisely that, and that is why we will support it.”