Canadian Fuel Affordability Act

Bill C-38, Canadian Fuel Affordability Act · Second reading · now law Where it stands

What the law does

The law extends the temporary suspension of the federal fuel excise tax until January 31, 2027. Between February 1, 2027, and March 31, 2027, excise tax rates on fuels are set at 50% of their regular rates.

Official text (opens in a new tab)

92 statements

Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Liberal
“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?”
Official Hansard

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?

Laila Goodridge, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake

Conservative

Linked statement

“Canadians want to spend their own money instead of letting the government do it for them. Liberal programs do not help because too many people are stuck on waiting lists. Over 30% of food bank users are children, which shows these programs are not working. We should pass this bill to lower the tax on fuel.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, what I heard loud and clear when I was touring my riding and meeting with Canadians from coast to coast to coast this summer is that they want agency. They want to make decisions as to how they spend their own money. They think they can spend their money a lot better than Ottawa can spend their money. They might have different priorities. Some of the programs mentioned by the Liberals are well and good for the people who can access them, but far too many Canadians are stuck on waiting lists or are waiting in line trying to access those services, so they do not do anything for affordability for the thousands and thousands of Canadians who are stuck waiting in line trying to get access or stuck waiting for the schools that have not done anything. One of the biggest frustrations, whether it be with the school food program or the day care program, which are provincial responsibilities, is that the Liberals have not worked as well with the provinces as I think they could have or should have to deliver these services. What they have done is create layers of bureaucracy, which means that right now over 30% of food bank users in Canada are children. That is a shame, and that is a shame on the Liberals.

Elizabeth May, Saanich—Gulf Islands

Green
“I will vote for this bill, but it will not fix the cost of living. Cutting this fuel tax adds to our debt and takes money away from public transit. If we want to help people, we should tax huge corporate profits, tax stock market trades, and build good public transit across the country.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this place for the first time to give a speech since our summer recess. I spent much of the time since I last saw members in this place, as we all have been doing, travelling through my riding. It may look like a small dot on a postage stamp to people who are looking at it quickly, but actually, given that it is five separate small islands, Saturna, Salt Spring, Mayne, Pender and Galiano, ferry transit between them makes it difficult to get to all parts of the community. Certainly, it takes a lot of time to travel with B.C. ferries. I am certainly supporting the motion from my colleague just down the way here, from Courtenay—Alberni, to find ways in the next budget to provide some funding to assist and have some equity between the way Atlantic Canada ferries are subsidized and B.C. ferries. I am detracting from my main point, which is that on the Saanich Peninsula, as the name of my riding, Saanich—Gulf Islands, suggests, I represent quite disparate areas geographically. Getting to nine different communities, as I do twice a year, to make sure I hold community meetings as conveniently as possible for all my constituents, means that I have just been on a very inspiring and constantly humbling experience of listening to my constituents in each of the five small southern Gulf Islands and throughout the Saanich Peninsula, from the very tip of it at the very northern part of the peninsula, near Swartz Bay and the airport, all the way down into areas that are covered by the MP for Victoria. We share some territories there. The concerns from constituents in Saanich—Gulf Islands are not unlike concerns from constituents I imagine my colleagues have heard across the country. There is a lot of concern about the cost of living, particularly around housing. There is a lot of concern about access to medical care, access to a family doctor and provision of health care services. In my communities, everywhere I went, there was the concern of the climate crisis. This summer, British Columbia had a state of emergency declared for the whole province as fires burned out of control. It was terrifying to see the sights out of Peachland and the areas around the Okanagan. We also had extreme weather events throughout British Columbia this summer. As a former Cape Bretoner, my heart broke to see the roads washed out and the floods and the loss of life in Cape Breton from the floods there. In other words, whenever I am travelling through my community of Saanich—Gulf Islands, I know that what I am hearing resonates with Canadians across the country. There is no question that Canadians are concerned about the cost of living, and I will be supporting Bill C-38, which we debate now, but I do so with some misgivings, because it, once again, piles on the notion that we are heavily taxed, which some Canadians are and some Canadians are not, and that a temporary relief measure like this will make a real difference. I also have a long memory, and I remember that back in 2008, Prime Minister Stephen Harper made the fuel excise tax permanent in the 2008 budget, which was one of the better things he did in terms of public policy. Again, in the 2013 budget, he confirmed and committed that the municipal order of government would be able to access those funds as a predictable, reliable source for public transit. This has changed over time in terms of where that funding comes from. For municipal orders of government across Canada, one of the concerns I have is, as we temporarily suspend the excise fuel tax, not only does it have impacts on our overall debt and deficit, because that is just money not coming in to the general federal revenue at a time when we have unprecedented levels of deficit already, but it also creates confusion for municipal orders of government. I have spoken to mayors who say that yes, they are told by the federal government that there are other infrastructure funds and they can apply through those, but they are not as transparent, not as predictable and not seen to be as reliable for helping people who are looking for public transit. I do have a number of points to make about this, but while we look at fuel taxes in today’s bill, let us just for a moment focus on public transit. This country, for a wealthy industrialized country, a member of the G7, has an embarrassingly poor public transit system, particularly in rural and remote areas of Canada, particularly if we are looking for an affordable form of transportation like a bus or a train. If a person owns their own vehicle, yes they can mostly get from A to B, but if they do not, they can be in some peril, recalling that the findings of the Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls included a strong recommendation that Canada commit to a ground transportation system that was affordable and reliable in rural and remote areas, because it is the vulnerability of the poor that places indigenous women and girls hitchhiking on the Highway of Tears. For people trying to get from Prince George to Vancouver, are within rural interior B.C., or for that matter, are in Saskatchewan or Alberta, we used to have a bus service that was quite reliable in most provinces, but it retreated everywhere and all at once. We used to have many more routes on Via Rail, and they used to be more affordable. I have heard Alto mentioned a few times in this place. However, the Green Party thinks that Alto needs major overhauls to become what it could be, but in the meantime, it does absolutely nothing for Canadians who do not live in the Windsor-Quebec corridor. It does nothing for people in rural parts of New Brunswick where medical care can be a five-, six- or eight-hour drive from a hospital. If it is winter and the roads are icy, or for a senior, there are no alternatives to get there except to get in a car and drive. Again, while we are talking about this fuel excise tax, because of its historical connection to transit, I wanted to use this occasion to make a few points on that. I am hoping that the federal government brings it forward in its next budget. I had begged the Prime Minister before the 2026-27 budget. When I met with the Prime Minister in early October 2025, I made this very point that we need affordable ground transportation in this country. We do not have it particularly for rural and remote Canadians, but we are also looking at a lot less predictability around the funds for urban public transit. Going to this piece of legislation and the focus on a temporary suspension of fuel excise taxes, there will be some ways in which that assists some Canadians: those who are buying gas. Again, if a person cannot afford to own their own car, they are not buying gas for a car. According to Statistics Canada, one out of 10 Canadians right now is living below the poverty line. That should command our attention. There is a growing gap in this country between the wealthiest and the poorest. I remember when I used to feel sort of complacent or self-satisfied as a Canadian thinking, “Well, that gap between the rich and the poorest is in the United States. It is not so much here.” We actually are going through a very significant shift. The middle class is feeling the crunch. When we talk about the affordability crisis, we are largely talking about the fact that, as some of my colleagues from other parties have already mentioned, we have families with two incomes who still cannot make ends meet. There is that crunch in the middle class, and affordability has become increasingly difficult. What has happened to the income distribution in this country? We may be in a class war where the upper class or the billionaire class has already won, and we did not even know there was a war. Again, one in 10 Canadians lives below the poverty line, but what is happening to the wealthiest? According to Forbes, in 2000, it could track 15 billionaires in Canada. I am not against billionaires. Well, actually, I kind of am. I think that billionaires should be taxed so that we can reduce them to mere millionaires so that they have to count their pennies like the rest of us mere millionaires. I am kidding, obviously. I am not in that group, but it does strike me as something that should command our attention that, right now, there are 76 to 82 billionaires in Canada. Again, 26 years ago, there were 15. Now, there are somewhere between 76 and 82 billionaires. Some Canadians are doing quite well. Some Canadians do not worry about the fuel excise tax. In fact, they do not worry about their income tax either. We are not taxing their wealth, which we really need to look at. We need to look at taxing assets. For what it is worth, in the last election campaign, thanks to the Parliamentary Budget Office and the act that oversees it, political parties had the right to ask for the Parliamentary Budget Office to give all political parties access to an analyst to look at budgetary planks that the party was looking at to see what the PBO thought of budget proposals. It happens that the Green Party platform, of all the party platforms in the 2025 election campaign, was the one that brought us closest to balanced budgets. I do not think anyone saw that in the news because, despite our efforts, we did not get any news coverage of the fact that we had the platform that brought us closest to balanced budgets. We did that through a combination of measures. One that was very successful was a tax on financial transactions. It used to be called the Tobin tax. In the late 1990s, the House of Commons passed a motion in support of Canada pursuing the Tobin tax. We applied it domestically and looked at what would happen if we put a 20¢ tax on every $100 of transactions in the stock market or currency transactions. Now that is not going to affect those people who are struggling in the middle class, nor does it have any impact at all on the one in 10 Canadians who are below the poverty line. However, applied to stock market transactions and currency transactions, it could bring in $55 billion to Canada’s general revenues. That could really make an impact for Canadians who are struggling. That could provide the transit that people need to get from A to B when they are in the group of people who either cannot afford to own a car or find it much more convenient not to have to operate one, particularly in urban areas. Again, rural and remote Canada also needs ground transit. When we look at the current situation and the price of gas being one of the main drivers of inflation right now due to the decision in February of this year by the United States and Israel to launch attacks on Iran. These violate the United Nations charter. I suppose I could be charitable and say the Prime Minister misspoke when he initially said that Canada was supportive of what the U.S. was doing in bombing Iran. Regime change has never actually occurred through foreign countries violating international laws to bomb them. In any case, ever since that occurred, the price of gas has been spiking, especially since the Strait of Hormuz started being blocked, which was entirely predictable, although somehow Trump and his advisers did not predict it. The effect of higher gas prices has been devastating on inflation and the cost of food. It has had a real impact, certainly for North Americans, and globally it has created a lot of instability in markets. It has created a lot of concern. One thing it has also created is a windfall level of profits for the oil and gas industry. Here we are debating a minor change that will affect the Treasury of Canada by increasing debt and deficit, but why are we not talking about the need for an excess profit tax on the industry that right now is essentially war profiteering? The oil and gas sector has, in the last year or so, had an extraordinary increase in profits, and some of it has certainly been to the benefit of Canada’s economy. Our government books and the Alberta provincial government books are better off for high fuel prices, but it certainly has not helped the average Canadian or for that matter the average American or people around the world who are struggling. They are also struggling, as I mentioned earlier, because of the climate crisis and the impact of having to become climate refugees, sometimes several times in the same year. I think of people in northern Ontario, near Wabakimi Provincial Park, in first nations communities that burned to the ground and had inadequate preparations for such events because the November 2025 budget gave scandalously scant attention to the need to protect communities and to build up a national firefighting force to buy water bombers. What we had was a commitment to lease water bombers and that was it. We were going to lease three water bombers over four years. There was nothing for what we need to do for flood protection and for building up. By the way, firefighters in this country are not even classed under occupational health and safety rules as first responders. They are at the back of the bus in terms of the protection for their own lives, their own salaries and their own pensions. I will go back to the issue of windfall profit taxes. According to the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, if we applied windfall profit taxes on the oil and gas industry, that could bring into the coffers of the Government of Canada between $18 billion and $48 billion. Again, that could assist us quite a lot in paying down the debt. With respect to the $34 billion, for some reason, I like to convert billions back to millions so we can think about what it really means to be a billionaire and what it really means for the Canadian government to spend the money it takes in through taxes. One billion dollars being 1,000 million dollars, we spent $34,000 million, without a single vote in this place, to build the Trans Mountain pipeline through a Crown corporation that we are now proposing would build a second pipeline. This is an outrageous waste of money, where the public purse is paying for something that the private sector does not think is worth investing in because there is no business case. However, if we brought in a windfall profit tax on the oil and gas sector and brought in $18 billion to $48 billion there and if we brought in, as we are advocating, a financial transaction tax to bring in $55 billion there, yes, we could start paying down debt and deficit. I meant to mention one thing about the pipelines that I forgot. The hon. Minister of Energy and Natural Resources was in British Columbia earlier this summer, and he actually said that the Trans Mountain pipeline was making “oodles” of money. To correct the record while I have a chance, in fact while the Trans Mountain pipeline in its year-to-year operations is more than breaking even and making some money, the revenues returned to the Government of Canada by the Trans Mountain pipeline have yet to be sufficient to pay the interest on the debt Canadians incurred to build it. If someone is making money in a normal business context, if they have spent $34 billion to build their business, personally I do not think they are making any money until they pay that off. They have a $34-billion debt and not one penny has been paid down but are under the assumption that pipelines are like something the tooth fairy leaves under one’s pillow and there is no actual cost to them. However, it is $34 billion and now the government is proposing to spend $40 billion for a project that has no private sector proponent. Regarding this bill, if we are going to provide real relief to Canadians and real measures for affordability, we do need to look at excess profit taxes on the very monopolistic small group of grocery store chains that we have in this country. We need to help farmers. Desperately, we need to help farmers so they can get food from their farms to the tables of Canadians, healthy local Canadian food. I applaud the measures the government has brought in for making greenhouses more accessible, but we need to make land accessible to young farmers and we need to do everything we can to ensure that the grocery store chains buy local and promote local so that our farmers can continue to provide healthy food to Canadians. We would not do much in Bill C-38 to actually deal with the affordability crisis. Yes, the Liberals have taken a page out of a position advocated by the Conservatives last year. Yes, I will vote for it, but I am concerned. Where is the government in really helping Canadians with affordability? Where is the help for remote and rural Canadians to get transit that is affordable? Where is the help to ensure that the poorest of the poor are not bearing a larger tax burden than the richest of the rich? It is time to actually consider tax fairness in this country, taxing wealth and excess profits of transnational corporations.

Tim Watchorn, Les Pays-d'en-Haut

Liberal
“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.”
Official Hansard

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.

Elizabeth May, Saanich—Gulf Islands

Green
“I will vote for this bill because people need help with high gas prices. But we still need to fight climate change and stop big oil companies from making too much profit.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the member for Les Pays-d’en-Haut. I know him well; he was once my neighbour in the House. Before the Liberal majority, I sat sit with them on the other side of the House. I know that his riding depends a lot on the ski industry. We had better do something about reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Otherwise there will be no ski industry in the country because we will not have enough snow to sustain it. Meanwhile, I am voting for this. I take his point that we want to be sure that we are reducing stresses for people today who are spending too much on gas, no question, but if we really want to invest in a future for Canada, it is time to act on the climate crisis and reduce excess profits to the big oil and gas industries that are making out like bandits at both ends.

Fraser Tolmie, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan

Conservative
“I want to thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for what she said. She is a good and caring person.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I know that this is not only questions, it is also comments. I would like to make a comment regarding my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands. I thank her for her intervention. I know she is not a millionaire. I know she is not a billionaire, but she does have a heart of gold. I thank her for the words that she brought forward.

Elizabeth May, Saanich—Gulf Islands

Green
“My side of the House has good neighbours too.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I just have to say that this side of the House is not bad for good neighbours.

Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Liberal
“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.”
Official Hansard

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?

Elizabeth May, Saanich—Gulf Islands

Green
“Canada needs a guaranteed livable income to end poverty. Poverty hurts the whole country. One in ten Canadians is poor, and people are living in tents. We are a rich country, and we should make sure everyone has enough money to live.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 95 of 100

    Of this reply, 93% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I think we have to really be bold. We need a guaranteed livable income to eradicate poverty in the country. Poverty costs our whole society. It is not a matter of charity. A wealthy, industrialized country like Canada should not have one in 10 Canadians living below the poverty line. We should not have people setting up tent cities. We should be able to ensure that every Canadian has what it takes to live, and that allows people to not fear clawbacks if they start making money somewhere else. If we are really serious about it, end the class warfare and declare that Canada wins by bringing in a guaranteed livable income.

Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

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

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?

Elizabeth May, Saanich—Gulf Islands

Green
“Canada should create a guaranteed livable income. We would be the first country to do it. Research shows it would save money on health care and justice. It would also protect people whose jobs are taken by artificial intelligence.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 9 of 100

    Only 10% of this statement directly addressed the matter under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we have a very active anti-poverty caucus that is all-party. It includes members of Parliament and senators. We have had lots of expert witnesses. We would be the first. Honestly, there is tons of research that shows that it would save our health care system. Poverty is the number one social determinant of health. It would save our criminal justice system and make our society fair. It would reduce costs everywhere. With the advent of AI coming for people’s jobs, putting in place a guaranteed livable income is the best way we can protect ourselves for the future. We would be the first.

Michelle Rempel Garner, Calgary Nose Hill

Conservative
“This bill does not go far enough. I want the government to change it and scrap all taxes on gas and diesel until Canada Day 2027. High fuel taxes make groceries and everyday life cost too much. We also need to cut immigration, deport people here illegally, and remove sales tax on new homes.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives want to do something about gas and diesel taxes. We want to see all of those taxes scrapped until Canada Day 2027 because Canadians are struggling. That is what I am going to talk about today. I am also splitting my time with the member for Edmonton Griesbach who is going to continue the argument. Why do we want to scrap all gas and diesel taxes? They are costing Canadians money that they do not have right now. Anyone who has gone to the grocery store recently can see it is grim. I was looking to buy some chicken thighs and a small pack of chicken thighs at a not-so-fancy grocery chain was $43. When I was looking at it, somebody said, “I think that’s a deal.” That is insane. We want to see the gas tax scrapped until Canada Day next year because when that tax is in place, not only does it affect consumers at the pump who are spending money they do not have, but it also affects the cost of everything. It affects the producers who are harvesting, who need diesel for their combines. That cost is then passed along to the consumer. It takes gas and diesel to transport the goods that consumers need to buy. When those taxes are on top of that fuel, who pays for it? It is the people who are listening to this speech today. That is why the Conservatives’ core focus for the fall is to save Canadians money. This is why we are calling for the government to scrap all gas and diesel taxes until Canada Day 2027. The bill that we are debating today that the Liberals put forward does not do that. They had an opportunity to work collaboratively in the House with the opposition, which is fiscally responsible, and take our recommendations, but they are not doing that. To me, this underscores the fact that the Liberals and the Prime Minister go out and talk to people using a lot of buzzwords and a lot of aggrandizing on the international stage. However, I am not seeing a lot of results when it comes to saving Canadians money. Make no mistake; what I am hearing about in the good riding of Calgary Nose Hill, and I am always pleased to stand up and fight on behalf of my constituents, is that they need to have money saved. They cannot afford to live. They are worried about their jobs, particularly with trade uncertainty. They want to be safe and they want to see immigration fixed. All of these points can come together in some of the policies that Conservatives have been pushing, but we are just not seeing them come forward in this particular bill. I want to show members how imperative the Conservative proposal is to have the gas and diesel tax scrapped well into next year, which is not in this bill. Money Mentors reported that 49% of working Canadians feel less financially secure than they did a year ago. That is half of Canadians. This is not some esoteric guessing game. Half of Canadians are saying they do not feel as secure as they used to feel. This is particularly true for young Canadians. I know there are a lot of Canadians of secondary school age who cannot find jobs, and they are also asking what their future holds. It is imperative that we fight on behalf of those people. People are paying more for goods because of a decade of Liberal inflationary deficits. Those deficits have actually ballooned under the Prime Minister. I thought the Prime Minister was supposed to get our fiscal house in order. In fact, he has done the opposite. People ask me why they should care about deficits. Deficits matter because they add to our debt. When we add to the nation’s debt, we have to pay debt servicing costs. It is like the interest on one’s credit card. When we are paying for that, we cannot invest in other things. I heard that the Government of Canada is now paying more for the interest on its credit card than it is on health care. That is not great. We need to ensure that, if the government is spending money on things, it is spending money on things or making fiscal decisions that are going to save Canadians money. That is why Conservatives are calling for the gas and diesel tax to be scrapped well into next year, which this bill would not do. It does not go far enough. That is a key objective. The other thing is that we have to talk about how we save Canadian jobs. Eliminating the gas and diesel tax well into next year would also provide some investment certainty for certain types of businesses that are trying to figure out their operating costs in an environment where there is a lot of uncertainty, which is what is happening in the country right now. This is why we as Conservatives are so dead set on putting forward measures that would save Canadians money, and their jobs as well. I serve as the Conservative Party’s immigration shadow minister. I also serve as the vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. The reality is that the Liberals brought too many people in too fast for housing, health care and jobs to keep up. That is not fair to anyone. It is not fair to the immigrants who came to Canada to build a better life. It is not fair to the Canadians who are here. In fact, that tension of bringing in too many people too fast has eroded Canada’s consensus on immigration. Now we have a lot of people competing for jobs that are rapidly disappearing. That is why Conservatives, including me and our broader team, are arguing for far lower immigration levels. We are arguing for the government to take measures to deal with this. CBC reported that there will be two million people in Canada by the end of this year who are on expired or expiring visas. We know that there are 500,000 undocumented persons and people who do not have a legal reason to be in the country. They need to leave. The government needs to have a plan to deport these people. It is not something that is comfortable for Canadians to talk about, but if people do not have a legal reason to be in the country, particularly because the Liberal government brought too many people in too fast, that problem has to be addressed. We are also going to continue to push those issues. When I hear the Liberals come forward and make all these announcements, they never seem to reach the people in my community. I think about the multitude of announcements they have made, and all I hear in my community is that people are waking up feeling like they can buy less groceries. They are less convinced that they can make their rent payments. Many of the people in my community would love to be making a mortgage payment, but they cannot afford to buy a house. Again, we are talking about saving Canadians money. That is why Conservatives are putting forward proposals like scrapping the GST on new home builds up to $1.3 million. That would save Canadians who are buying homes up to $65,000 on a new house. Those are common-sense measures that we do not see reflected in this bill that would directly impact the Canadians who are struggling to get ahead and pay their bills. This affects all Canadians. It is not just young Canadian, but seniors on fixed incomes. Inflation is in a lot of ways unique to Canada because of the policies and procedures the Liberals have put in place over the last several years. People cannot afford that. What I would like to see, and what I know everybody in the Conservative Party would like to see, is for the government, instead of bringing in this bill or even amending it, to take our suggestion to scrap the tax on gas and diesel well into next year. We propose Canada Day. The bill would not do that. I would like to see from the government not just announcements to spend government money, but announcements that would directly impact affordability, directly drive down grocery costs and directly make the lives of the constituents in my riding more affordable and more stable. This is so important. It is why we are here. We are in an economic crisis. The government put us in a weak position before this happened, but now we have to deal with it. Having bills that are just half measures is not going to cut it for the people in Calgary Nose Hill or across Canada. I implore the government to take the Conservative proposal to change this bill so that the gas tax is cut on diesel and gas up to Canada Day 2027.

Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Liberal
“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.”
Official Hansard

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?

Michelle Rempel Garner, Calgary Nose Hill

Conservative
“The member opposite always defends Justin Trudeau instead of serving his community. He defended opening the Roxham Road border and letting in nearly a million temporary students. He also defended changes to temporary foreign worker rules. My party wants to end that program, except for farm workers.”
  • 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
  • Reply to a debate question

    Respect 93 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “He is a rabid Justin Trudeau defender”.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite vigorously defended Justin Trudeau opening the border at Roxham Road. He vigorously defended bringing in hundreds and hundreds of thousands of temporary students in about three years. I think it was close to a million. The member is one of the most vigorous defenders of Justin Trudeau in Canadian history for his constituents. Their MP defended Justin Trudeau. That is what he did for a living. Instead of being in his community, he defended Justin Trudeau. He also defended the changes Justin Trudeau made under our previous government, which were to lower the number of temporary foreign workers. We are now calling for the elimination of that and a special program for agriculture workers. However, mark my words: The member defends Justin Trudeau. He is a rabid Justin Trudeau defender, and his record in Hansard shows that.

Rachael Thomas, Lethbridge

Conservative
“Canada's inflation is uniquely bad because of this government's choices, not just global issues. It is driving up the cost of everything. I want my colleague to say more about why our inflation is different from other countries.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague gave a compelling speech with regard to Canada’s economic state, the inflationary measures the government has put in place and how they are a net detriment to the Canadian people. One of the statements she made is that the level of inflation we are experiencing in Canada is in fact unique; it is problematic to us. The current Liberal government would like Canadians to believe that it is being experienced globally. However, that is not the case. Canada is in fact a stand-alone nation in the way that inflation is impacting its people and driving up the cost of everything. I wonder if my colleague would care to expand on that further.

Michelle Rempel Garner, Calgary Nose Hill

Conservative
“Government overspending is causing high costs for Canadians. It is making rent and groceries more expensive, and leaving people with less housing and food. Conservatives will save Canadians money.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that is such a great point, and I agree with everything my colleague just said. I want to emphasize something. I just ragged on Justin Trudeau. He is actually more fiscally responsible than the current Prime Minister is. Can members believe that? Justin Trudeau developed a more fiscally responsible budget than the current Prime Minister did. How is that possible? I thought the Prime Minister was supposed to be super awesome on the economy, yet, to my colleague’s point, the Prime Minister is raising the deficit to historic banana levels. Anybody who is watching this is not going to say that they see the results of that. They do see the results of that. They see increased costs. They see their rents increasing. They see less housing. They see less groceries and less protein in their baskets at the grocery store. This is because of what my colleague said. When the government puts forward inflationary deficits, which Canada has done and is unique in doing in the G7 right now, costs go up for average Canadians. Conservatives are going to save Canadians money.

Elizabeth May, Saanich—Gulf Islands

Green
“The government set its goal of 500,000 immigrants a year based on advice from a private consulting company. Parliament never debated or studied this. The government relies too much on outside consultants. I want to know what progress we have made in stopping the use of these consultants.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I like it when I can agree with my friend from Calgary Nose Hill. It does not happen all the time, but I always like it when we agree. One of the things I found maddening was when I discovered that the target for immigration of half a million people a year adopted by the previous government was a recommendation that came out of the blue from McKinsey. We are hiring management consultants. We never had a debate in this place about it. Canadians might think that if a target was set of half a million people a year, we must have had a committee study and it must have been in Parliament. Does my friend from Calgary Nose Hill have any updates on how we are doing in getting rid of consultants?

Michelle Rempel Garner, Calgary Nose Hill

Conservative
“Private consultants convinced the government to grow Canada's population too fast. Bringing in too many people too quickly has hurt public support for immigration.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to report to my colleague that those consultants have now been further embedded in the government. I am thinking specifically about Dominic Barton and Mark Wiseman. They were advocates for allowing 100 million people into Canada in a very short period of time. This was called the Century Initiative. Those policies were embedded within the Trudeau government, which the government’s deputy House leader just defended vigorously. Of course, that is fair to nobody. Too many people too fast is the Liberal legacy, and it eroded Canada’s consensus on immigration.

Kerry Diotte, Edmonton Griesbach

Conservative
“I support this bill, but the government should do more. It should remove all federal taxes on fuel, including the GST, until at least Canada Day 2027. Lower fuel costs help families, farmers, and truckers afford their lives and do business. The Prime Minister also needs to end the trade war with the United States to protect our auto jobs.”
  • A repeated line

    “Conservatives are calling for all federal taxes on gas and diesel to be removed until at least Canada Day 2027.”

    Said 4 times by 4 members since September 22.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to this act to amend the Excise Tax Act and extend the federal fuel excise tax relief. At its core, the legislation would do something very simple. It would extend the suspension of the federal excise tax on gasoline, diesel and aviation fuel until January 31, 2027. Then the tax would come back. On February 1, the government would bring it back at half the regular rate, and on April 1, the regular excise tax rates would return. Canadians need relief at the pumps, and Conservatives have been pushing for exactly that. The Liberals originally planned to bring this tax back after Labour Day, and Conservatives pushed for the relief to continue. Canadians made clear that they are struggling with the cost of living, and the government changed its timeline. Now we are asking the Prime Minister to listen again. Conservatives are proposing to extend broader federal fuel tax relief until at least Canada Day 2027, because families in Edmonton Griesbach and right across the country are still struggling to afford their lives. They need to fill their cars, buy groceries, heat their homes and get to work without wondering what new cost is coming next. Under the bill, the current suspension would continue through January, and beginning February 1 the federal excise tax on gasoline would come back at five cents per litre. Diesel and aviation fuel would come back at two cents per litre. By April, the regular rates would be back. Conservatives believe that Canadians should get that relief for longer. If the Prime Minister recognizes that lowering fuel taxes helps Canadians today, why not extend that relief until at least Canada Day, and why stop with the excise tax? Why not look at other federal costs on fuel? Why not look at the GST? Conservatives under Prime Minister Harper cut the GST from 7% to 5%, and that relief stayed. Conservatives are calling for all federal taxes on gas and diesel to be removed until at least Canada Day 2027. That includes the GST and the cost associated with the clean fuel regulations, because every dollar matters to a family trying to make its budget work. Take a family filling up a 60-litre tank. At 10¢ a litre, that is six dollars in federal excise tax relief every time they fill up. That six dollars becomes $12, then $18 and then $24. For a family with two vehicles, it adds up even faster. That matters when they are buying groceries, when the mortgage payment is due, when the kids need new shoes or when the hydro bill comes in. The impact goes well beyond the family filling up at the local gas station. I think about the farmer, the trucker, the contractor or the small business owner. Fuel is not optional for these Canadians. It is the cost of doing business. A trucker cannot deliver food without diesel. A farmer cannot operate equipment without fuel. A contractor cannot carry lumber and tools to a job site on the bus. For millions of Canadians, driving is not a luxury; it is how they earn a living, and fuel is built into the cost of almost everything. Somebody grew the food, somebody processed it, somebody put it on a truck and somebody drove that truck to the store. Every step costs money, and fuel is part of that cost. When we lower the cost of moving goods, we help lower the cost of doing business right across this country. The same goes for construction. Liberals keep talking in the House about building more homes, but talk is cheap. It does not build homes. Canadians do not need another list of projects sitting on paper. They need shovels in the ground. They need homes built. They need mines opened. They need roads, pipelines and infrastructure moving. They need Canadian resources getting to market, and most importantly they need the jobs that come with all of it. A project does not employ a worker because Ottawa announced it. It creates opportunity when somebody actually builds it. That is how we grow this economy. That is how we raise paycheques, and that is ultimately what affordability is all about. It is not just what Canadians pay; it is also what Canadians earn. Canadians need jobs. They need investment. They need businesses expanding and hiring. They need projects moving from an announcement to a construction site. That is how Canadians get ahead. People should keep more of what they earn. Small businesses should have room to grow. Workers should receive bigger paycheques. That brings me to another major economic challenge facing Canadian workers and businesses, the trade war with the United States. Tariffs raise costs. There is no question about that. Trading tariffs back and forth does not make groceries cheaper or businesses more competitive. The Prime Minister has spent considerable time pursuing new economic relationships in Europe, but Europe is not going to simply replace the United States. Look at our auto sector. Statistics Canada reported that more than 93% of our motor vehicle exports go south of the border. That is the reality that Canadian auto workers are facing. We can pursue opportunities in Europe. We can diversify our trade somewhat. We can sell more Canadian products around the world, but European customers are not going to replace the 1.5 million Canadian vehicles sold annually to the U.S.A. Our auto industry was built around an integrated North American market. Right now, that market is being disrupted by tariffs. The Prime Minister has to get to work. He has to get the trade war resolved. He has to get the tariffs off Canadian workers and Canadian businesses. Canadian auto workers cannot afford to wait while their largest export market becomes more expensive to access. Canadian manufacturers cannot plan investments when they do not know what the rules will be six months from now, and Canadian businesses cannot simply be told to find another market and move on. The United States is our largest trading partner. That relationship matters. The Prime Minister needs to get back to work here at home, get back to the table with the United States and get this trade war resolved. That is what he promised in the last election. Canadian workers need results. The government claims it is serious about affordability, so it should be looking at every opportunity to lower costs and strengthen the Canadian economy. Lower the cost of fuel. Get our products to market. Remove the barriers to building homes. Cut unnecessary red tape. Create the conditions for businesses to invest, expand and hire. Protect Canada’s access to its largest trading partner. The Liberal government cannot tax Canadians into prosperity, try as it might, and it cannot replace economic results with announcements. International meetings have their place, and new trade relationships have their place, but Canadians should be able to look at what their government is doing and see those efforts producing results here at home: more jobs, more investment, more homes, more projects getting built and paycheques that actually go further. Canadians are doing their part: the single mother driving to work every morning, the tradesman loading his truck before sunrise, the farmer putting fuel in his equipment, the trucker moving Canadian goods across this enormous country, and the small business owner trying to make payroll. Those are the people we should be thinking about when we debate the bill. They benefit from paying less tax on fuel. The question is straightforward. If extending the relief through January helps Canadians, why not give them a few more months? Why not extend broader fuel tax relief until at least Canada Day 2027? Give Canadian families more time with lower fuel costs. Give farmers and truckers more breathing room. Give small businesses more time with lower operating costs.

Mark Gerretsen, Kingston and the Islands

Liberal
“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.”
Official Hansard

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?

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 141

  1. Government Orders Canadian Fuel Affordability Act 92 statements
  2. Oral Questions The Economy 12 statements
  3. Government Orders Canadian Fuel Affordability Act 10 statements
  4. Oral Questions Government Priorities 6 statements
  5. Oral Questions The Economy 4 statements
  6. Oral Questions Forestry Industry 4 statements
  7. Oral Questions Housing 4 statements
  8. Oral Questions The Economy 2 statements
  9. Oral Questions Canadian Identity and Culture 4 statements
  10. Oral Questions Housing 4 statements
  11. Oral Questions The Economy 8 statements
  12. Oral Questions Public Safety 4 statements
  13. Oral Questions Justice 4 statements
  14. Oral Questions The Economy 8 statements
  15. Oral Questions The Economy 2 statements
  16. Oral Questions Justice 4 statements
  17. Oral Questions Taxation 2 statements
  18. Oral Questions The Economy 2 statements
  19. Oral Questions Labour 6 statements
  20. Oral Questions Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship 2 statements
  21. Government Orders Canadian Fuel Affordability Act 65 statements
  22. Oral Questions Justice 2 statements
  23. Private Members' Business Jury Duty Appreciation Week Act 6 statements
  24. Government Orders Canadian Fuel Affordability Act 182 statements
  25. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  26. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements