“Her numbers are wrong. We need to look at the whole picture to make life more affordable. Will the Conservatives support our other programs that help with costs, like dental care and school food?”

“Mr. Speaker, the member can review her own math. I question the math she just provided. Let us take a more holistic approach. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: No, her numbers are wrong. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, let us take a holistic approach in dealing with this issue. Does the member believe that the Conservatives should support other programs that provide support on affordability, like the dental care program and the nutritional school food program? Are those not programs that help with affordability?”

“People in my riding spend a lot of time stuck in traffic driving to work. This bill helps them pay less for gas now, but it still saves money to pay for better public transit later. I am asking the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands what she thinks of this balanced plan.”

“Mr. Speaker, I always like working with my hon. colleague, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. We always have great conversations. What I am hearing in my riding when I go door to door is that people have confidence in what our Prime Minister is doing, what measures we are putting in place and how they help people in my riding. I live north of Montreal. A lot of people work in Montreal but live in my riding, so they spend a lot of time sitting in traffic on Autoroute 15, which is one of the most congested places in Quebec. This measure would give them a certain amount of relief. I find this measure very balanced. We would be giving relief to people at the gas pumps now but maintaining revenue in the future to make sure we can invest in public transit because public transit is definitely a problem. I would like to know from my hon. colleague how she finds this balanced approach a good measure.”

“Our programs for dental care, medicine, and groceries help make life more affordable. I want the member to share her ideas on other ways the government can help people with high costs.”

“Mr. Speaker, that was a really nice comment, I must say. I would look to the leader of the Green Party. I can appreciate some sensitivity on the issue that is up for debate today from the Green Party’s perspective. I am wondering if the member could provide some of her thoughts on how indirectly government can support people on the issue. I have talked a great deal about, for example, the dental program, the pharmacare program and the grocery benefit program. Does she have any further thoughts on the issue of affordability and ways, whether direct or indirect, that the government can look at them?”

“Can the member name any other major wealthy country that has the basic income program she wants?”

“Mr. Speaker, just as a follow-up on that particular wish that the leader would like to see, could she cite another country, in the G7 or G20, that has what it is that she would like to see here in Canada?”

“The previous Conservative government pushed to bring in more international students, which caused major pressures later. The Prime Minister promised to stabilize immigration numbers, and our government is doing exactly that.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on what I see as a bit of irony coming from the member opposite. She was part of the Stephen Harper government when it made the decision to increase the number of temporary students coming to Canada. It was hoping to achieve over 300,000. That is a well-documented policy approach by the Conservative Party at the time. The combination of achieving that particular goal and the pandemic played a huge role in where we were a year ago. The Prime Minister made a commitment to stabilize immigration and is doing just that. Does the member see any issue with a newly elected Prime Minister, along with 70-plus newly elected Liberal members of Parliament, doing what he committed to doing in the last election?”

“Our car industry needs both Canada and the United States to work together. But the new American government does not want to do that anymore. It is unfair to blame our Prime Minister for this. Instead, we must help our workers and find new trade partners. I want the member to explain what he thinks we should do instead.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member talked about the automotive sector in Canada being built on the concept of integration between Canada and the United States. I do not think there is anybody in the House who would disagree with that, but what I want to hear from the member is what his proposed solution is to this. Integration depends on both countries being interested in trade. What we have seen since the new administration has come along is that the United States is moving away from that. It is no longer interested in the integration the member talks about. He can stand here and say until he is blue in the face that the Prime Minister needs to get back to work, but the reality of the situation is that if one side is no longer interested in that integration, there is really not much one can do other than to provide supports for workers and look for new opportunities. Can the member explain what he means by “get back to work”, when the objective is clear?”

“Our taxes on American goods protect Canadian workers and businesses. If the member opposite does not support defending them, I want to know what he actually supports.”

“Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member’s remarks quite intently. At one point he mentioned that tariffs upon tariffs are not helpful. The fact of the matter is that countertariffs that we are placing on American goods are about protecting Canadian businesses and Canadian workers. If the hon. member does not believe in our government’s defending Canadian workers and businesses, what does he agree with?”

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

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the member for Bourassa. The global economy is going through a period of considerable uncertainty. New unwarranted tariffs imposed by the United States are creating uncertainty for Canadian workers, families and businesses. At the same time, ongoing conflicts in the Middle East and Europe continue to put pressure on global markets and drive up prices. Although we have no control over decisions made elsewhere in the world, we can control how we respond to them. As Canadians continue to face economic uncertainty and a rising cost of living, affordability remains a priority for families and businesses across the country. That is why our government continues to take action. I am therefore pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-38, the Canadian fuel affordability act, which seeks to extend federal fuel excise tax relief with respect to gasoline, diesel fuel and aviation fuel. Earlier this year, the Government of Canada temporarily suspended this tax to help Canadians cope with the rising cost of living and fuel prices. The day the pause took effect, gas prices dropped 11¢ a litre, proving that the savings were quickly passed on to consumers. This measure actually benefits all Canadians, even those who do not drive. When global energy prices go up, the consequences go far beyond the cost of a tank of gas. Transportation costs go up, delivery costs go up, operating costs go up and, ultimately, consumers end up paying more for the goods and services they need every day. In light of this reality, our government decided to take action. The result is savings for millions of Canadians who drive to work, drive their kids to sports or otherwise have to get around on a daily basis. Another benefit is reducing transportation and operating costs for Canadian businesses. Extending this measure in the current context is a no-brainer. That is why we believe it is important to maintain that support. Bill C-38 therefore proposes to extend the suspension of the federal excise tax on fuel until January 31, 2027. Then, in the months of February and March, rates will be restored to only half of their usual level before a full return to the regular rate on April 1, 2027. Thanks to Bill C-38, Canadians will continue to benefit until January 31, 2027, from tax relief of up to 10¢ a litre on gas and four cents a litre on diesel. During February and March, the relief will continue at a rate of five cents a litre on gas and two cents a litre on diesel. This is a balanced, gradual and responsible approach. It provides greater predictability for families and businesses, while facilitating a gradual return to the usual rates. This bill is about affordability. Across the country, families are trying to make every dollar count. They have to pay their mortgage or rent, buy groceries, and cover the cost of daily commuting. In many parts of Canada, a car remains a necessity. For many Canadians, especially in rural areas and even in regions surrounding major urban centres, a car is not a luxury. It is a necessity. It is an essential tool for getting to work, accessing services and participating in the economy. Bill C-38 recognizes this reality and aims to provide additional relief to households that continue to feel the effects of the rising cost of living. However, as I explained earlier, its importance extends far beyond motorists. Think of the truck drivers who transport goods from one end of the country to the other. Think of the farmers who supply Canadians with food. Think of the entrepreneurs in the construction industry. Think of the school buses that take our children to school. When fuel costs rise, it has a ripple effect throughout the economy. It has an impact on the cost of food, building materials and consumer goods. Bill C-38 helps alleviate these pressures and supports the sectors that drive the Canadian economy. The government estimates that this extension will deliver approximately $2.9 billion in additional tax relief to Canadians, bringing the total relief to approximately $5.3 billion in the 2026-27 fiscal year. That is a significant investment, an investment in families, workers, Canadian businesses and the resilience of our economy. In a global climate of uncertainty, Canadians expect their government to act, they expect us to take concrete action to cut costs where it is warranted and they expect us to support the workers, families and businesses that drive our economy. That is exactly what Bill C‑38 does. It offers genuine relief for families, supports workers, supports businesses and helps make life more affordable in what remains a challenging situation. I know that this extension will give families in Terrebonne a bit of breathing room. For all these reasons, I encourage all members of the House to support Bill C‑38 and vote in favour of it.”

“My colleague explained this bill well. Can she tell us more about what it will do for the people in her riding?”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague did a very good job of explaining the context that gave rise to this bill. Can she tell us more about what this bill will do for the people of Terrebonne?”

“I support this bill because it lowers gas prices. Public transit is not good enough in my riding, so families need their cars and need this help with the cost of living.”

“Mr. Speaker, this kind of measure will help families, especially in Terrebonne. The riding I represent is outside the urban core, but it has ties to major centres. There is a lot of room for improvement in public transit, which is why every household has at least one car. Bringing gas prices down for those struggling with the cost of living will help a lot of families in my riding. That is relief they need right now.”

“I want the member to explain this bill in simple terms for the people watching. What does it do, and how will it help Canadians?”

“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate hearing the comments the member was able to share. Today I have been listening to the debate in this place, and it has been interesting to hear the different perspectives on what this legislation does. I would just like to hear, in simple terms for Canadians who are watching, what the value of this legislation is. What does it do? How will it benefit Canadians?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 42 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 lowers fuel costs for families and businesses. This will help every part of our economy, from shipping goods to running school buses.”

“Mr. Speaker, in practical terms, this is about reducing costs not only for households, but also for businesses. There are seven industrial parks in my riding, Terrebonne. Businesses move their goods in and out every day. I recently read an article about school buses, which are struggling because of the price of diesel. The point is that this measure to bring costs down will help all sectors of the economy.”

“This bill cuts the fuel tax by 10 cents a litre until the end of January, and then by five cents a litre until the end of March. It is one of several things the government is doing to help people afford life. I want the member to explain why using many different programs to help Canadians matters.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is important that we reflect on exactly what this bill does. It provides a 10¢-a-litre break, extending it until the end of January, and then, once we get to the end of January, it becomes a five-cent-a-litre break until the end of March. It is one of many initiatives the government has taken to support Canadians on the issue of affordability. I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts on why it is important that this is just one of the initiatives, because we could also talk about the Canada grocery benefit program. We could talk about the tax break for 22 million Canadians. Can she just give her perspective on that?”

“We have helped people with the cost of living by cutting taxes and funding school meals. Bringing this fuel tax back slowly gives people stability and helps them plan their spending.”

“Mr. Speaker, we have indeed done a great deal to address the cost of living. We cut taxes for 22 million Canadians. We invested in the national school food program and made it permanent, which is very important. In concrete terms, our approach is providing Canadians with stability. A gradual return to a normal rate also helps Canadians plan their spending during difficult times. Stability is what they need right now.”

• Echo ×17

  A repeated line

  “We cut taxes for 22 million Canadians.”

  Said 17 times by 12 members since April 27.

  Every time it was said →