“Conservatives tried to cut the fuel tax three times to help families with costs. The Liberals voted against it every time and said our ideas were false. Now the government wants to cut the tax itself. I want the minister to explain why they changed their minds.”

“Madam Speaker, I have been here long enough, coming up to 11 years now, to remember the Liberals’ talking about the Conservative proposal of removing the excise tax on fuel. They accused Conservatives of spreading disinformation and said that it in fact would have a limited effect on affordability, yet here we are with the finance minister’s doing this today. The minister talked about swift and concrete action. Well, in April 2024, the Leader of the Opposition put forward an opposition motion to save families $670 by removing the tax on gas. Again, on April 15, 2026, the hon. member for Calgary East proposed another motion. Then, on May 27, 2026, the member for Richmond—Arthabaska—des-Sources proposed another motion to remove the tax on gas. In each and every case of those opposition motions, because Conservatives were ahead of the curve and saw the affordability crisis impacting Canadians at that time, it would have provided real relief, but instead the Liberals accused us of disinformation. In every case, the Liberals voted against it, including the Minister of Finance. Why has there been the change?”

“I support cutting fuel taxes, which happened because Conservatives pushed for it. Much of the oil helping government finances flows through my riding, where the 2021 flood hit. Will the minister promise to fund a new pump station to protect this farmland and the pipeline?”

“Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister of Finance for agreeing to bring forward Bill C-38. Thanks to relentless pressure from the Conservatives, we have some taxation relief today. The finance minister outlined a series of other measures related to affordability. We should note in the House of Commons today that the government is doing better on its finances because of the high price of oil. Much of that oil actually flows through my riding; 37% of all oil from the Trans Mountain pipeline goes right through the Sumas Prairie where we had the big flood in 2021. That area is very vulnerable. In the MOU signed between the federal government and the Province of B.C. this summer, they committed to providing $20 million for funding the study, but there was no final commitment to put in the pump station to protect the most agriculturally significant lands in the province, the Trans Mountain pipeline and where they wanted to build a new pipeline. Would the finance minister be able to outline to the House whether the government will fund a new pump station to protect future investments in the Trans Mountain pipeline corridor, British Columbia’s most significant agricultural lands and—”

“I am asking everyone here to let me share my speaking time with another member.”

“Madam Speaker, before I begin, I seek unanimous consent to split my time with my colleague from Barrie South—Innisfil.”

“I support lowering the fuel tax in this bill, but it is not enough. Small businesses and families are struggling with high costs, and a small, temporary gas tax break will not fix that. Big multinational companies get huge tax breaks, while regular people only get a few pennies of relief. We need permanent tax cuts and fewer rules on energy so people can keep more of their own money.”

“Madam Speaker, I want to tell members about a man I will call David. David owns a little coffee shop on a main street that could be in almost any town in Canada. It is not fancy. There are a dozen small tables, a chalkboard menu behind the counter and a bell above the door that has probably rung a million times. He turns on the lights, ties on his apron and starts getting ready for the morning rush. He has been doing this for 20 years now, and he knows his customers well. He knows who wants an extra shot of espresso and which construction crew will go through that door just after six. David loves his business, but lately he has begun to dread opening the envelopes that arrive in the mail. The price of everything he buys has gone up under the Liberal government. The coffee beans cost more. The milk costs more. The cardboard cups cost more, and so does his insurance, his electricity and his rent. David cannot simply pass every increase along to his customer because he knows they are struggling too. He sees it in his customer who used to order breakfast and now just gets coffee, or the young mom who used to stop in three mornings a week and now comes once, so David absorbs what he can. Then there is the espresso machine. It has been sitting behind the counter for nearly 15 years. Every morning, David listens to it wheeze and rattle and hopes it makes it through another day. A new one would make the shop more efficient, use less power and let him serve customers faster. Maybe he could even expand his business a little. However, by the time David has paid his employees, his landlord, his suppliers and the government, the money he thought he might put toward a new machine is gone, so he calls the repairman again, replaces another part and tells himself, “Maybe next year.” Do members remember that young mom David used to see three mornings a week? Let us follow her home. She and her husband live only a few streets away. They are not poor. They both work. They have a modest house, two kids and two incomes, and 10 years ago they thought they were doing pretty well. They were the kind of family we used to call comfortably middle class, but lately, comfortable is not the word they would use. Their family car is 15 years old now. There is a warning light on the dashboard. The mechanic has told them that there is another big repair bill coming, and they know they really should replace it. Ten years ago, they probably would have. Today, they look at the price of a new car, look at the payment and decide the old car will have to last another winter. Let us now leave the family’s kitchen, and come with me to a very different room. Imagine a glass boardroom high above a city. Around the table are not mom and dad wondering whether the roof can survive another winter. There are executives, accountants, lawyers and investment advisers deciding where a multinational corporation should put its next billion dollars. Now Ottawa has put something new on that boardroom table: the mega deduction, a major new tax break designed to convince companies with capital, like, let us say, Brookfield, to invest here. Put those three rooms side by side. At the kitchen table, mom and dad have already gone through the bills twice. They need a new car and the roof needs work, but none of these qualify for this new Liberal mega deduction. What Ottawa offers them is Bill C-38, a few pennies per litre when they fill their gas tank. A few streets away, David may be able to use the mega deduction if he buys that new espresso machine, but first he has to find the money to buy it. After paying his employees, his suppliers, his rent and his taxes, there is not enough left. Let us face it. A deduction on something someone cannot afford is not too much help. His tax break is much the same as the family’s: a few pennies of relief when he gases up. Then there is the third room, where the numbers have a lot more zeros. Here is a corporation headquartered in New York with the capital to make enormous investments and a team of accountants who can calculate exactly how much a new tax deduction changes the return. Lucky for them, their former board member is now the Prime Minister of Canada. For that room, Ottawa is proposing a massive tax advantage, and this is where I think something has gone badly wrong. Do not get me wrong. Lower taxes have always been a Conservative principle. I want businesses investing in Canada, expanding here and creating good jobs, but lower taxes should not be a privilege reserved for the people with enough money and the right high-powered friends to be able to take advantage of them. If lower taxes help a multinational invest and grow, why would we not want that same breathing room for David? Why would we not want it for the families sitting around the kitchen table? They have spent years watching more of their paycheques disappear into taxes, while the cost of housing, food and fuel has climbed. Small businesses have faced the same rising costs, along with layer after layer of taxes, paperwork and government rules. Now, after making it harder and harder for them to get ahead, governments arrive with a few pennies of temporary relief on their gas and expect them to be grateful. Canadians deserve better than that. David does not need Ottawa to run his coffee shop or a government program to tell him that a new espresso machine would make his business more productive. He already knows that. He needs enough money left at the end of the month to buy it. That family does not need Ottawa deciding where its money would be most productive either. Mom and dad already know exactly where their next $100 needs to go. That is their decision because it is their money. Yes, let us give them the fuel tax relief in Bill C-38, but let us not call a few months of relief a solution. Conservatives have been pushing for relief at the pumps for a long time, years in fact, so we are glad the Liberals have finally discovered that lower taxes can actually help people. However, this is what happens when a Liberal government tries to borrow a Conservative idea without understanding the principle behind it. Canadians do not need a temporary break from high prices. They need policies that actually bring prices down. Gas prices have skyrocketed, and while Canada sits on some of the largest energy resources in the world, years of taxes, regulations and barriers to developing those resources have left us more vulnerable when global energy prices rise. This is a trap the Liberals created themselves. Relief means lower taxes, affordable energy and developing the resources Canadians already own. Let us stop piling costs onto the people who produce, work, hire and raise families in this country. Let us stop piling costs onto the people who are working to raise their families in this country. Let us stop treating small business like an endless source of tax revenue and paperwork. Let us stop taking from Canadians only to decide in Ottawa which multinational will get it back. Instead, let us remove the barriers that have been squeezing the middle class and small business, and then give Canadians room to do what they have always done. Here is what Ottawa seems to be missing: We would not have to wait 10 years for some foreign company’s investment to trickle down to the rest of us. Small and medium-sized businesses employ nearly two-thirds of Canada’s private sector workers. If thousands of businesses like David’s had a little more room to breathe, the effect would begin on main street across this country almost immediately. David does not need 10 years to decide what to do with another few thousand dollars left in his business. He already knows. He fixes the machine, buys equipment, gives an employee another shift or finally hires a person he has needed for months. Maybe mom starts stopping at David’s coffee shop three mornings a week again. Her five dollars goes into David’s till. David pays his employee. His employee buys lunch down the street. A roofer gets the family’s business. The mechanic gets paid. People begin making plans again instead of putting them off for another year. Nobody in Ottawa had to decide where those dollars should go. Ordinary Canadians did that themselves. That is what prosperity looks like: Canadians keeping more of what they earn, making their own choices, building their businesses, looking after their families and creating a better life for the people they love. That is what a real Conservative government would fight for.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Signal 44 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 support cutting fuel taxes, but this bill does not go far enough. It starts bringing the tax back in February. People and businesses will still struggle with high costs then. We want the tax break to last until Canada Day.”

“Madam Speaker, we support giving Canadians relief from federal fuel taxes. The question is whether the government is even going far enough. Bill C-38 would keep the excise tax at zero only until January 31. It would then bring back half the tax in February and March, before the regular rates return in April. Canadians’ affordability challenges do not suddenly disappear in February. Families will still need to drive to work. Businesses will still need to move goods. Farmers and producers will still face fuel costs. That is why Conservatives have called for fuel tax relief to continue through Canada Day as part of a broader action to lower costs.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 46 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“A farmer in my area is paying $2.43 a litre for farm fuel and cannot afford these rising costs much longer. Does the member think this bill will truly help farmers with these high fuel costs?”

“Madam Speaker, I think it is really important that in the House, we tell the stories of Canadians who are struggling. While I was sitting here, I actually got a message from a local farmer in my riding who said to me that they are paying $2.43 a litre for farm diesel. They wonder how much higher these costs can go before they can no longer afford to produce anymore. I am wondering if the member is hearing similar types of stories. Does she believe that this meaningfully addresses the concern that we often get from farmers of increased input costs that are making their businesses completely unsustainable?”

“I want the House to pass this bill to keep pausing the fuel tax. Farmers, truckers, and businesses need fuel to make and move goods. When fuel costs go up, everything costs more for regular people. Extending this tax relief will keep costs down during a hard economic time.”

“Madam Speaker, I cannot begin to tell members how many times in the last couple of weeks I have heard about the cost of diesel. Fuel costs affect much more than what a family pays when they fill up their vehicle. Fuel is an input into producing and transporting goods across the country, which we hear everywhere. Farmers need it to operate equipment. Truckers need it to move products. Businesses need it throughout their supply chains. When those costs increase, they do not simply disappear. They place additional pressures on producers, businesses and ultimately consumers. Extending relief means continuing to lower one of those costs during a period when Canadians and Canadian businesses are already dealing with significant economic uncertainty. The objective should be to keep costs down rather than to begin putting them back up again.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Tariff relief programs offer almost no help to small businesses making under $1 million, like local coffee shops. I want my colleague to tell us more about how this hurts businesses in her community.”

“Madam Speaker, I especially appreciate the focus that my colleague provided on small businesses. One of the things we have seen with the tariff relief is that for most of the programs, almost nothing is available to businesses under $1 million, like the coffee shop that she was discussing. I am wondering if my colleague could elaborate on that and talk about how that is playing out in her community.”

“I want the House to pass this fuel tax cut. Local businesses are struggling to stay open. This bill is part of our plan to lower costs for families and employers, which will bring more jobs and growth.”

“Madam Speaker, I am hearing that everywhere I go. We had a large picnic on the weekend before we came back, and everybody was talking about the fact that this is making it very difficult for businesses to continue. Fuel tax relief is only one part of a broader economic approach. The Conservatives’ economic action plan has called for gas tax relief to continue through Canada Day, faster approval of projects awaiting federal permits, removing the GST from Canadian-made automobiles, eliminating the capital gains tax on reinvestment in Canada and reducing other barriers facing Canadian investment. The principle connecting these measures is straightforward: lower the costs facing families and employers and create better conditions for investment, employment and growth.”

• 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 →

“I support this bill to cut the fuel tax, but it does not go far enough. High gas taxes make groceries and everyday life cost more for struggling families. Conservatives tried to cut these taxes three times before, and the Liberals voted against it every time. Now the government is finally copying our idea. This tax cut should last longer, at least until Canada Day in 2027.”

“Madam Speaker, I am thrilled to be standing here today to talk about this bill, which would continue the lowering of the excise tax on fuel until January. Over the summer, I listened to my constituents and many of the business owners who have had to deal with the unjustified tariff war that is going on right now, which was started by the American administration. This type of relief and the continuation of this type of relief are welcomed. It was Ann Landers, the famous columnist, who once said, “People of integrity expect to be believed,” and when they are not, “time [will] prove them right.” The finance minister’s introduction of this bill has proven that Conservatives have acted with integrity on this issue and have worked hard for many years to save people money. We see this as a welcome temporary relief that perhaps does not go far enough, but who can argue against saving people money? Certainly, the Conservatives have been arguing this for years. Much of what Canada is facing, our citizens are facing and our businesses are facing, if we are honest about it, has been a self-inflicted wound of failed economic policies, policies that have not improved the lives of Canadians and have not saved them money. In fact, it has cost them a tremendous amount of money over the years, especially over the last 11 years, and we are seeing that continue. A lot of these failed policies were implemented long before Donald Trump became the President of the United States. It is Canadian businesses, Canadian families and Canadian workers in all sectors, like the energy sector and the interprovincial sectors, who are paying the price. What we have seen over these years is Canadians walk into the grocery store, especially seniors and single moms, who are those who can least afford it, look at the prices and, sadly, have to put many items back on the shelf. We are seeing a nutrition problem, and a food security problem, that is rampant in this country. I know that because many of the calls that I take in my constituency office are literally about walking people back from the ledge because they cannot afford their rent, their groceries and the necessities of life. For many years, Conservatives have been arguing for the removal of the excise fuel tax, the carbon tax and other taxes, because there is a cascading effect across the supply chain that impacts the prices in stores. When the producers, the wholesalers and the transporters have to pay this type of tax, it has an impact on people. It is only now, after 11 years, that the Liberal government is starting to understand what we understood years ago, which is that many of these failed economic policies, including these policies of increased taxation, are having that kind of effect on people. I stand here today in support of this legislation, but I also remind the House, and I remind you, Madam Speaker, as I know you are aware of this, that there have been several occasions when Conservatives have proposed reducing the tax on fuel, whether it is the excise fuel tax, the industrial fuel tax or other taxes. Each time we proposed those through opposition day motions, every single member of the Liberal government voted against it. Every member on that side voted against. There have been three occasions. This started in 2024 when the Leader of the Opposition proposed that we remove fuel taxes to save people money. At that time, the Conservatives were well ahead of the curve. We were not listening to polls. We were listening to our constituents about the impact that gas taxes were having on them, not just on the price they were paying at the pumps, but also on the price they were paying at the grocery stores and the price they were paying on all goods across the economy.At that time, in 2024, we proposed removing the tax on gas. The Leader of the Opposition did that. What did the Liberals do? They voted against it. Then, when Parliament resumed on April 15, 2026, the member for Calgary East proposed a motion, which states: That... (i) gas prices have soared upwards, (ii) Canadians now pay almost 20 per cent more at the pumps than Americans due to high Liberal taxes, the House call on the government to adopt the Conservative plan to save Canadians 25 cents-a-litre by removing federal taxes on gas and diesel— Diesel is in a whole other stratosphere with respect to pricing and how it is impacting producers, especially our farming communities. I will continue with the motion from back then in April: (a) removing the Fuel Excise Tax for the remainder of 2026, which costs Canadians 10 cents-a-litre; Every single Liberal voted against that motion. In fact, if I recall the debate back then, the Liberals who were standing up that day were accusing the Conservatives of spreading misinformation, of lying to Canadians about the savings they would have on removing the excise fuel tax, yet here we are today with government legislation that is proposing exactly what we proposed years ago, which could have started saving Canadians money. Then, on May 27, 2026, the member for Richmond—Arthabaska—des-Sources in Quebec talked about 13% higher gas prices in Canada than the United States, which equates to 22¢ more on average per litre. Again, every single Liberal member voted against that. People of integrity expect to be believed. When they are not, time will prove them right, and time is proving the Conservatives right on this and many issues, including the carbon tax and any other pieces of legislation that were Conservative ideas that the government is now implementing. I subscribe to the politics that, if it is a good idea, it does not matter whether it is a Liberal idea, a Conservative idea, an NDP idea or a Green idea. If it is a good idea that benefits Canadians, Canadian families and Canadian businesses, then it should be supported. Every single one of those opposition motions that we put forward was a good idea to save Canadian families and Canadian businesses money, but in every circumstance, the Liberals voted against it. All of a sudden, here we are today, and it is a good idea. We have a constitutional obligation as an opposition to question the government. Our constitutional obligation is to hold the government to account. It is to call into question decisions that are being made, legislation, regulatory reform or any other thing that it proposes. That is our constitutional obligation, and we uphold that obligation with great respect and great integrity. It is also our obligation to propose solutions to the government when things are not working, when things are failing with respect to legislation, regulation or other policies. That is precisely what we did. I know the government House leader, yesterday, stood up and accused Conservatives of proposing things that were un-Canadian. The government would rather have an audience than an opposition. These were good ideas that were being proposed years ago, and we will continue to propose ideas that are going to help Canadians. Let me end with something I received from a constituent. As the House knows, we have the ability to communicate all the time through various means, including sending out mailers. I got this one over the summer. Chris from Innisfil said, “The gas tax needs to be much lower”, which would improve affordability and automatically lower prices. Today, as I stand here, I say to Chris that I am sorry that we could not have done this earlier. We tried, as an opposition, to make life more affordable and to save him money. On this day, we will do that. We are going to support the government on this. It does not go far enough. We believe that it should extend at least to Canada Day in 2027, because the economic crisis, the food insecurity crisis and the affordability crisis that families are facing are real and are going to continue under the Liberal government.”

“The school food program is already in place, and people in my riding are not telling me it helps. We support bills that save Canadians money during this tough economic time. We will always oppose government policies that fail to help regular workers and families.”

“Madam Speaker, there is nothing to revisit. The government passed it. It is implemented. I have not heard much in my riding about children actually benefiting from it. Nobody is reaching out to me to say that it is the greatest program in the world. We will support things that benefit Canadians, Canadian families, Canadian workers and Canadian businesses, and we will support the things that save them money during the great economic crisis that is going on right now. Again, this is a self-inflicted wound that started long before Donald Trump became the President of the United States. We will vigorously oppose, upholding our constitutional obligation, things that do not help Canadian workers, Canadian families and Canadian businesses, and the history of the Liberal government is that there are not many things that have worked properly except for well-connected insiders.”

“For months, the Liberals voted against cutting the gas tax and said it did not make life unaffordable. Now they are cutting it, but it is too late. I want my colleague to explain why the Liberals changed their minds.”

“Madam Speaker, the Liberals said for months and months that their gas tax was not creating an affordability crisis. We brought forward motion after motion, and every Liberal member voted against getting rid of the gas tax. Can my colleague explain what he thinks of the change of heart the Liberals had. Why are they now admitting that they were wrong after all these months, when Canadians could have had a tax decrease on groceries for months? Now they are bringing it in a little bit late. Why has there been a change of heart from our Liberals colleagues?”

“Liberals only care about who comes up with an idea, not whether it helps people. We proposed cutting the fuel tax in 2024 to save Canadians money and help the economy. The Liberals rejected it then because it was a Conservative idea. Politicians need to stop playing games and help Canadians.”

“Madam Speaker, first, I want to say that I am sorry that I did not get any questions from my colleague from Mirabel. However, I will respond to the hon. member’s question. I think I spoke about it. I do not think the Liberals, in their ideology, subscribe to the concept that it does not matter who proposes an idea, but if it is good for Canadian workers and Canadian businesses, then maybe they should adopt it. This could have been saving people money, not just all summer, but back in 2024, when we first proposed the removal of the excise fuel tax. We saw, as Conservatives, and we were hearing it from our constituents back then, that the tax was having a profound impact, not just on them personally, but as a cascading effect across the economy. The only thing that I can say to the hon. member is that, if it is not a Liberal idea, then it is a bad idea, and that is what we have been dealing with in this place. It is time that we stopped this and started thinking about Canadians, rather than our political fortunes in this place.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 27 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 Prime Minister copies our ideas. The Liberals are using our platform because it is what Canadians need. People did not vote for us, but we will keep offering solutions to make their lives better.”

“Madam Speaker, that is a great question. The Prime Minister has proven himself to plagiarize. It is a well-documented fact that he has plagiarized many things, so it is no surprise to me, as a Conservative, that he is plagiarizing our platform, because our platform is what Canadians needed. Unfortunately, they did not vote for it, but we will continue to propose solutions that make lives better.”

• 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 this bill. Conservatives have asked for this fuel tax break for a long time. The Liberals are finally copying our plan, even if they are doing it slowly.”

“Madam Speaker, the member mentioned folks who drive Hummers, and I would just point out to him that the new Hummer is actually an EV, so he might actually be in favour of people who drive Hummers. I want to congratulate the Liberal government on implementing the Conservative agenda, albeit maybe at half speed or a dollar late and a day short. Nonetheless, this has been something that we as Conservatives have been calling for, and this is just part of a growing trend of the Liberal government adopting our agenda and promoting it. Would the member not agree that the Liberal government is, although it may be at half speed, definitely implementing the Conservative agenda?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 28 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 needs to stop bragging about its dental care program and fix it. Many seniors are still getting surprise bills they cannot afford, including one senior in my area who was billed $10,000.”

“Madam Speaker, it is great to stand on behalf of the people of Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame and speak for the first time as the member for the riding that has its former name back. I just heard Prime Minister Trudeau’s and his successor’s special spokesman brag about the success of the dental program and how it brings down the cost of living. Our constituency assistants have a group chat with other assistants right across Canada. The number one common issue that they are dealing with is seniors who have fallen through the cracks of this super-duper dental program. They are finding that after they have had their treatment or received their dentures or whatever procedure they had, they get a $100 bill, a $500 bill or a $900 bill. Last evening my constituency assistant from Gander told me that a senior citizen had gotten a $10,000 bill, and they do not know how to pay it. They are shocked. My question is for the spokesman for the Prime Minister. Will he stop bragging about this failed program, or will the government simply fix it?”

“High prices are not going away soon, but this fuel tax relief is only short-term. I want the member to explain why we are not making this tax relief permanent to help keep food costs down.”

“Madam Speaker, my colleague seems to have lost his way in the last answer, but I am grateful for the fact that he acknowledged the collaboration that has been taking place among the parties in order to provide relief to Canadians. My colleague from Mirabel noted that the price pressures here are not short-term and yet the relief is short-term. I wonder if the member can explain why this relief is short-term and why we are not taking the longer-term actions that would bring stability to things like food costs by extending this indefinitely.”

“This bill does not help seniors who live on fixed incomes. Many seniors in my community live in poverty and pay high taxes, especially if they are single. Most seniors disagree with the government on this.”

“Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke about seniors. I have seniors in my community who disagree with the government’s position. A lot of them are living below the poverty line. When we take single seniors and look at the amount of taxes they are paying versus a couple earning the same amount of money, it is higher. If we look at a couple earning $50,000, they are paying $600 in taxes, but if we look at an individual, they are paying $5,800. How is this going to benefit someone who cannot currently live within their current fixed income? Seventy-two per cent of seniors disagree with the government’s position.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 8 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Canadians used to be able to afford their own dentist visits and groceries. The Liberals have only added to the national debt, which means higher taxes and higher costs for everyone. I want to know why they are making Canadians rely on government programs for everything.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member opposite went on and on about socialized dentistry and Maoist food programs, but it used to be that Canadians could afford to pay for their own dentistry, and they could afford to buy groceries and feed their children what they wanted. The Liberals have not paid down any debt since 2015, when they were first elected, and that interest keeps on accumulating. It results in taxes, more taxes and unaffordability for Canadians. Why does the member opposite want Canadians to be dependent upon government for everything?”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Respect 80 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “Why does the member opposite want Canadians to be dependent upon government for everything?”.

  See full analysis →

“I support this bill to cut the fuel tax, but it is not enough on its own. Cutting this tax was a Conservative idea that the government took. Life is too expensive for Canadians right now, and food bank use is at record levels. The government needs to use more Conservative ideas and stop expensive projects that drive up inflation.”

“Mr. Speaker, welcome to the chair. It is an honour for me to get up to talk about affordability on behalf of the constituents of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, specifically with respect to Bill C-38, the Canadian fuel affordability act. By the way, I am sharing my time with a member forFort McMurray—Cold Lake. The government has framed Bill C-38 as a collaboration among the parties and members within the House, which is not entirely accurate, because long before I came here, the leader of the Conservative Party, and the Conservatives as well, were talking about affordability and the pressures Canadians were under. In fact, the leader of the Conservative Party was actually pushing for this tax break at the pumps long before I came along, specifically through the campaign. It has just dawned on the Liberals this past year that, yes, maybe Canadians are having a tough time and that maybe they should save them some money at the gas pumps. Then they had the revelation that affordability has not gotten better in Canada but has gotten worse, and that they should extend the tax break to help Canadians. That was a Conservative idea, among many other Conservative ideas that the Liberals took. We applauded the idea of getting rid of the carbon tax, because that was a Conservative idea. Then the Liberals said they were taking away only the consumer carbon tax and keeping the industrial carbon tax, but that we should not worry as it is not going to affect affordability. Anybody will tell us that any kind of business that gets additional expenses, including taxes, will not absorb it. They eventually pass it on to the consumer. I agree there are a lot of different components that add to inflation and the cost of living. This is just one small component. Therefore, if anything, while I do applaud this measure because it is a Conservative measure, I will be asking the government to take more of our Conservative ideas to save Canadians money, not just at the pump but also to deliver the promise of actually making groceries affordable so we have something, as the Prime Minister requested, to judge him on: the prices at the grocery store. Overall, this one measure is not going to fix affordability, but it would help. It is assistance for families and especially for our young people when fuelling up at the gas pumps. I also agree with the members of the Liberal government who said that feeding children in schools is not a new initiative. My own band, for instance, started doing that not only for children in schools but also for seniors, because we had own-source revenue by engaging the economy. It is not new, but having to feed children in schools is at record levels in Canada, a first world country. Record levels of people are visiting food banks in Canada in a single month, over two million, of which approximately 30% are children. Given where I come from, I can understand that. I understand the hardship and heartbreak of a middle-class family. One in five of the people who are visiting a food bank has a job. This is what I noticed as an MLA in Victoria, when I used to walk to work. I walked past the food bank. Once a week it would have a food distribution. Slowly I started seeing minivans parking outside and people eating the food they had taken from the food bank. It was hard to ignore. This affordability issue is not what it was 20 years ago. The middle class is now affected. They are now struggling to the point where even our young, educated professionals are looking to leave Canada because of the cost of living. There is a lack of opportunity. There are no projects getting approved. Nothing is moving in Canada. In terms of our young people and our future, I do not know about the rest of the people here, but where I come from, we always looked to see what the future of our country is going to be, what our province is going to be, what our region is going to be and what our community is going to be, for the benefit of ourselves and, more importantly, for the benefit of our kids and our grandkids, especially in a place like Canada. What was the Liberal proposal at a convention? It was for those young people to try to find a better life elsewhere, abroad, maybe in the United States. The proposal was to think about a $500,000 exit tax. If they cannot afford life as it is in Canada, how are they going to afford $500,000 to leave Canada? That is cruel. It is not investing in the future. How can we invest in the future when we are not looking at how Canadians are struggling? The Liberals are praising their dental plan and are asking how come the Conservatives keep criticizing it. When I go back to my riding, seniors approach me and tell me how they do not qualify. They make too much money under their pension. I actually stopped a senior citizen in Kitimat, who was shopping. She had one item in her cart. It was bread at 50% off because it was old bread. She did not even go to the store for bread. She goes there regularly for the opportunity to find something on sale. She had one item. There are a lot more measures the Conservatives have proposed that the Liberal government should entertain and that should pass. The four or five proposals that the Liberals borrowed from the Conservatives and implemented in the last campaign were a good sign that the Liberals are finally waking up to how Canadians are struggling. The suspension of the fuel tax is one small measure that can help, but it is not going to be enough. We agree that there are global situations that are making this situation worse, things that we cannot control, but there are things in Canada that we can control, including what we are talking about here today: extending the fuel tax break. The government could stop the inflationary borrowing and budgets that are being proposed. It could stop some of the projects that will increase inflation, such as the $90-billion Alto high-speed rail project. That is $90 billion that we do not have. This is a great announcement, but it is certainly not enough. Will it affect affordability, especially for people who do not even have cars? This just keeps piling up. As we go through the debate, and I am sure a lot of members can see this, costs are continuing to go up, based on the Liberal government’s own debates and based on global pressures. Can the government focus on affordability for Canadians? Within our own circle of what is Canada, can we focus on things we can do here now to help, such as what the Conservatives have been talking about since long before I got here? We will continue to fight for affordability for Canadians, fight for young people and fight for a better Canada, but the Liberal government has to take more of the direction that is coming from this side, not just the four or five ideas it has taken from the Conservatives over the last year.”