“Our government is helping with food costs through our school food program. It feeds hundreds of thousands of children across Canada. The Conservatives want to cancel it. I want to know if the member thinks her party should change its mind and support it.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member said the core of the motion today is, in essence, about people and the issue of affordability, and I believe she used the term “cost of food”. It made me flash back to the number of things the government is doing, including the tax levy exemption. The other thing that came to my mind was the national school food program. It delivers food to hundreds of thousands of children in every region of our country, yet the Conservative Party has determined that it is a garbage program and it is going to get rid of it. I wonder if the member believes the Conservative Party should flip-flop on that position and support the national school food program.”

“Our government has created many programs to help people afford life, like dental care, school food, and tax cuts. I want the Conservatives to tell Canadians which of these programs they actually support.”

“Mr. Speaker, a Conservative member asked a question about the federal government playing the blame game, which is just not true. Let me pose it in a different way. Can the Conservatives explain to Canadians, on the issue of affordability, what they actually support among the multitude of programs the federal government has put in place? Is it the tax break for 22 million Canadians, the groceries benefit program for Canadians, the dental program, pharmacare, the national school food program for children, or the tax break we are giving them—”

“I do not support the opposition's motion. World events are driving up prices, but our government is helping right now. We suspended the federal fuel tax to lower gas prices, cut income taxes, and created a national school lunch program. We are giving families real help today, while the opposition only offers slogans.”

“Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Mississauga—Lakeshore. I am grateful for this opportunity to talk about the official opposition’s motion, which addresses the reality of the cost of living. High prices are a daily reality in my riding of Bourassa and in many Montreal neighbourhoods. In Montreal North, families are counting every dollar at the grocery store every day. Workers are wondering whether they will be able to fill up their tank before their next paycheque. Retailers are absorbing price increases they never chose. These people do not want slogans like the ones we are hearing from the opposition. They want initiatives and results. We live in an unstable world. Wars on the other side of the world, trade tensions and weakened supply chains have impacts that trickle down to our kitchens and gas pumps. Canada did not trigger these crises, but it has a duty to respond, and our government is responding. We chose to act here and now. We chose to take action with Bill C‑38. Bill C-38, the Canadian fuel affordability act, extends the suspension of the federal excise tax on gasoline, diesel and aviation fuel until January 31, 2027. Zero, not a penny, as we say back home in Quebec. This suspension has been in effect since April 20. Members opposite surely remember that. From day one, the price at the pump fell by an average of 11¢ a litre. In practical terms, that means savings of about $5 on a 50-litre fill-up. We are doing this responsibly. We are doing it, of course, because we are thinking about Canadian families. The tax will be gradually reintroduced in February and March 2027 at half the regular rate: five cents per litre for gasoline and two cents for diesel. There will be no shock and no surprises. The impact goes far beyond the family vehicle. From truck drivers and farmers to delivery companies and grocery stores, the entire supply chain that feeds the country will benefit. Yes, diesel prices have risen around the world, but let us set the record straight and correct a few points that have been raised by the other side of the House. Diesel costs less in Canada than in most G7 countries. Since the end of February, prices have increased less here than in the United States, and the provincial diesel taxes, which range from roughly nine cents to more than 20¢ per litre, are not necessarily up to Ottawa. Let us talk about affordability. That has to do with more than just the price per litre. The opposition wants to talk about fuel, so let us talk about it, but affordability is not just about fuel. It does not come down to just the price per litre. It is measured in a number of ways. I will quickly list them off and go through them in more detail afterward. Affordability also comes down to groceries, home ownership, pay and our children’s lunch boxes. It is also measured in equity. Let us talk about groceries. The new Canada groceries and essentials benefit provides 25% more than the old GST credit. It is tax-free, and it benefits more than 12 million low- and modest-income Canadians. A payment is coming up this week. With this summer’s supplement, a family of four will receive up to $1,890 this year and about $1,400 a year for the next four years. The amount for a single person is $950 this year and about $700 for the next four years. Affordability is measured in home ownership. For first-time homebuyers, there is no GST on homes up to $1 million, and it is reduced for homes between $1 million and $1.5 million. That means up to $50,000 in the pockets of our young dreamers who really want to make their dream of owning a home and getting on the property ladder a reality. It is also measured in terms of pay, as I said earlier. We cut the tax rate for the first bracket of personal income from 15% to 14%. This has benefited 22 million Canadians. It puts $420 per year per person in their pockets, or $840 for a dual-income household. It is reflected in a child’s lunch box. Allow me to make a quick aside: It is a shame to hear people on the other side of the House say that this measure, which helps many young people and schoolchildren, is garbage. Canada’s national school food program, which is now permanent, provides meals for approximately 400,000 children each year. It saves a family with two children nearly $800 a year on groceries. It is also measured by our work and actions in the area of equity. Thanks to the automation of federal benefits, 5.5 million low-income Canadians will automatically receive the support to which they are entitled, such as the Canada groceries and essentials benefit and the Canada child benefit. A benefit that is not claimed because of a lack of information is, unfortunately, a benefit that is lost. In closing, we have no control over the global forces driving up prices, but we do have control over the measures we must put in place here and now and over our government’s initiatives, which must be just, fair, sincere, and, above all, responsible. This responsibility aspect is exactly I am so uncomfortable with the motion that has been introduced by the party across the way. Our response is to take meaningful, measured action and, as I just said, to act responsibly. The opposition is proposing long-term solutions to a problem we are facing today. We are delivering results today while building a stronger economy for tomorrow. Making life affordable and strengthening our economy is not a choice between two goals. It is a single, unified commitment to families in Bourassa and across the country.”

• Echo ×12

  A repeated line

  “This means that a family of four will receive up to $1,890 this year and about $1,400 a year for the next four years.”

  Said 12 times by 9 members since April 30.

  Every time it was said →

“I want to pass this bill. It does not interfere with Quebec's powers or its carbon market, and we are not giving up on our environmental promises.”

“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his eloquence, but I would like to stay on topic. So as not to mislead anyone, it is very important to note that Bill C-38 does not affect Quebec’s jurisdictions or its carbon market. It does not affect any portfolio. It is also important to point out that our government is not reneging on its environmental commitments; far from it.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 48 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“This gas tax cut will help Canadians, but it is only one part of our plan to lower costs. I want the member to talk more about how these kinds of measures help people and grow our economy.”

“Madam Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague can provide some additional thoughts in regard to the larger issue of affordability. The gas tax levy break that is being provided to Canadians is significant. It will help out greatly. However, it is part of a broader package, as the government understands the issue of affordability and is doing what it can by bringing in a number of different measures. I wonder if the member can provide his thoughts on how important it is, as we continue to try to grow the economy and make a stronger and healthier economy overall, that we address the issue of affordability by having the types of measures we have brought in.”

“We need a strong economy that can handle hard times. Lowering gas prices is good, but we are doing more. We are helping people buy food, own homes, earn better pay, and get school meals for 400,000 kids.”

“Madam Speaker, first of all, I thank my colleague for the question. I think it is relevant because the watchword here is resilience. We need a resilient economy. A resilient economy must have clear, concrete solutions that go beyond today’s topic. As I mentioned earlier, beyond the affordability of gas prices, we have put measures in place to help with groceries, to support access to home ownership, to address pay, to help 400,000 young people with school meals, and, of course, to promote equity and access to information regarding government assistance. With these actions, we are building a resilient, balanced and, above all, responsible economy.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  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 →

“We are helping people right now. Gas prices dropped by 11 cents a litre right away, which helps families and small businesses save money. The opposition's ideas are not measurable and are not responsible.”

“Madam Speaker, I noted several points, but the most important one was when she asked for measures to be taken now. That is just what we are doing: taking measures now. Prices fell by 11¢ per litre on day one. That is for the mom who wants to fill up her car. That really makes a big difference to her wallet. That is for someone who uses their car for their company, for their own small or medium-sized business. That has a real impact here and now. What the members on the other side of the House are asking for is not measurable in terms of the impact it can have on taxpayers, and, above all, it is not responsible. With that, I will say it again: We are going to have an economy that is resilient but, above all, responsible.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a comment in debate

  Signal 31 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 →

“High diesel prices hurt farmers, truckers, and families, but Canada cannot control global oil markets or world events. Our government gave immediate help by pausing the fuel tax, and we are fixing pipelines and transport systems to move fuel better. Building new refineries takes years and will not lower prices today, so we need to focus on both quick tax relief and long-term energy projects.”

“Madam Speaker, the recent surge in diesel prices has indeed created real challenges for Canadians. Farmers bringing in this year’s harvest are facing higher costs. Trucking companies moving goods across the country are facing higher costs. Businesses that rely on diesel power and equipment are also facing higher costs. When transportation costs rise, Canadians often see those costs reflected in the prices they pay for food and everyday goods. Diesel prices matter to Canadians. They affect household budgets, businesses, farmers and industries across the country. Understanding what is driving those prices is essential if we want to identify solutions that can make a meaningful difference. That is because we oftentimes misunderstand the problem, and if we do, we end up chasing the wrong solutions. One of the challenges in this debate is that many different factors affect the price of diesel. Some of those factors are within Canada’s influence and others are not. A responsible energy policy begins by understanding the difference. Let us begin with what Canadians can influence. Governments can act to provide relief when Canadians are facing higher costs. That is exactly what the government did. Earlier this year, the Government of Canada temporarily suspended the federal fuel excise tax on diesel and gasoline. When global pressures persisted, the government extended that relief. That support is expected to provide billions of dollars in relief to Canadians. Members opposite may argue that the relief should go further, and that is a legitimate debate. One of the central proposals in today’s motion is tax relief on diesel. On that point, the government has already acted, but the discussion cannot stop there. That is why the government is collaborating with industry, provinces and territories to identify opportunities for Canada to strengthen the resilience of its fuel system, including for transportation networks, storage capacity and other types of infrastructure. By working in lockstep with provinces and territories, we can create the conditions to attract investment in the critical energy systems and infrastructure Canadians rely upon every day. Fuel security is not determined solely by how much fuel is produced. It also depends on whether that fuel can reach the communities, farms and businesses that depend upon it. That requires ensuring that pipelines, rail, storage, and strong distribution networks are always in place to ensure access to the energy that Canadians need. This motion recognizes that fuel security is about more than refining capacity alone. The debate is about how best to strengthen those systems and how quickly Canadians can expect to see results. Now let us consider what Canada cannot control. Canada does not set the global price of crude oil. Canada does not determine global refinery margins. Canada does not control international diesel shortages. Canada does not control wars and geopolitical instability, nor disruptions affecting energy markets around the world. In fact, G7 leaders met virtually on Friday because these challenges are affecting countries around the world, not just Canada, and they agreed to coordinate the release of strategic fuel reserves and diesel in response to pressures affecting global fuel markets. That is a reminder that many of the forces affecting diesel prices extend well beyond the reach of any single government. All of those events can affect the price that Canadians pay. Of course, recognizing that reality is not an excuse. It is simply an acknowledgement of the facts. The fact is that no federal government, regardless of political stripe, can legislate away global energy price volatility. No government can pass a motion in the House of Commons and eliminate geopolitical risk, and no government can guarantee that international supply disruptions will never occur again. What governments can do is strengthen resilience, reduce vulnerabilities and help Canadians weather disruptions when they occur. That is exactly what the government is focused on doing. One aspect of today’s motion deserves particular attention. The motion proposes expanding diesel production and building additional fuel infrastructure, including refining capacity, transport networks, and storage. I agree. The government agrees that adequate refining capacity remains important to Canada’s long-term energy security. However, it is important to note that Canada already produces more diesel than it consumes. The challenge is not simply how much fuel Canada produces but also ensuring that fuel can move relatively easily and reliably through the systems Canadians depend upon. If market demand supports additional refining capacity, our government should carefully consider proposals to expand its production, but Canadians also deserve a realistic discussion about what refining capacity can and cannot accomplish. A new refinery cannot be planned, financed, approved and constructed in a matter of months. Projects of that scale take years. Even under optimistic assumptions, they cannot address the affordability challenges Canadians are facing right now. That does not make them unimportant. It simply means they solve a different problem. They are not primarily about lowering diesel prices this month. They are about making Canada more resilient in the future. Diesel prices are ultimately linked to North American and global fuel markets, so simply adding refining capacity in Canada would not necessarily translate into significantly lower prices for Canadian consumers. A responsible energy strategy requires both immediate action and long-term planning, not one or the other, and that is exactly the approach the government is taking. First, the government provided relief that Canadians can feel today. Second, it is strengthening the system that will help Canada respond to future disruptions tomorrow. That broader work is already under way. Global instability and associated volatility in diesel prices reinforces the importance of strengthening resilience of our energy systems. Canada already produces significant amounts of energy, but we should also be looking for ways to move that energy more efficiently across the country. That is why the government has focused on strengthening transportation networks and improving market reliance. Recent approvals, including the Wolf Midstream project, the Sunrise expansion project and the Taylor to Gordondale project, will strengthen the infrastructure that moves energy and fuels where Canadians need them most. The Pacific link is another recent example of that work. The Government of Canada recently designated the project as one of national interests under the Building Canada Act. It has the potential to strengthen Canada’s energy security and diversify our export opportunities. A resilient country is a better-prepared country. A better-prepared country with energy security is about more than any single project and about more than any single type of fuel. Canada’s energy security depends on having reliable conventional fuels, strong transportation networks, adequate storage and, increasingly, abundant clean fuels and clean energy. These are not competing objectives; they strengthen one another. Reliable diesel remains essential for farmers, truckers, construction workers, mining operations and countless businesses across the country, but Canada’s energy security is also strengthened when we produce more reliable alternatives to diesel, such as more clean fuels such as renewable diesel and biodiesel. More supply makes energy systems more resilient, and more options make it more reliable. That is why the Government of Canada has also supported the growth of Canada’s biofuel sector. The goal is to strengthen Canada’s domestic production of renewable alternatives to protect Canadians, to build energy security and to add fuel to the market. They complement conventional fuels rather than replace them. More fuel supply strengthens market resilience and reduces pressure on prices. Energy security is strengthened when Canada produces more energy of all kinds. That means more conventional security, more conventional energy, more clean fuels, more clean energy and more resilience. That is how any country can be prepared for uncertainty. Canadians need relief today. They also need confidence in the future. That means taking action where governments can make a difference and strengthening Canada’s energy security over the long term. Our government is doing both. That is the approach Canadians deserve and the approach we will continue to pursue.”

“Canada can produce oil and gas while also developing clean energy. We have the resources, and the world wants them. Our country's success depends on selling fuel, energy, and minerals, and we will keep doing that while building clean alternatives.”

“Madam Speaker, the question is whether we can do both. Can we walk and chew gum? We need to do both. The fact is that we need to provide clean alternatives within the system as we proceed. There is a demand. We have the resources. Canada’s prosperity is dependent upon its ability to provide some of our critical minerals, including fuel and energy from the tar sands. We are already a huge producer of energy around the world. We will continue to be, and we will continue to provide alternates, including clean energy alternatives.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The world still needs our energy resources, and Canada is a trusted partner to provide them. We must look at new forms of energy for the future, but we can develop our resources and protect the environment at the same time.”

“Madam Speaker, I appreciate the fact that we are asking questions. We should always ask questions, and the government should be held accountable to the investments it is making for the future benefit of Canadians. I will argue, though, that demand does exist. The prosperity and legacy of that demand over a longer period of time of time may dwindle, which is all the more reason we have to look at alternative forms of energy, but Canada has what the world wants. We have heard that many times. The world needs Canada to be at the table to provide some of the resources and trust. Canada is a trusted partner in these endeavours. We are trusted to provide environmental protection as we proceed. We can continue doing both, and we will.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →
• Echo ×4

  A repeated line

  “Canada has what the world wants.”

  Said 4 times by 4 members since June 18.

  Every time it was said →

“Our bill gives people quick help through a tax cut, but we also need major energy projects for the future. I want my colleague to explain why we need both short-term help and long-term plans for our natural resources.”

“Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on the point of short-term and long-term relief. The short-term relief is in Bill C-38, providing the tax break. In the long term, looking at the major projects and recent announcements about Pacific link and LNG phase two, we see that there are projects that can help us into the future. I am wondering if my colleague can provide his thoughts on why it is important for us to have a balance of both short-term and long-term thinking when it comes to the issue of our natural resources.”

“The government needs to think about the long term, not just the next election. We must invest in big projects for Canada's future while still giving people help right now. All parties and provinces need to work together on this.”

“Madam Speaker, the point is well taken. The government has a responsibility, a duty and an obligation to Canadians to think beyond election cycles. Short-sightedness is not what is going to make what the Canadian future requires. We have to look long-term. We need to make these investments for the benefit of Canadians and our prosperity. At the same time, we can provide relief in transition to that resilience and reliability that is being invested in these major projects. It is important that Canadians work together with all provinces and all parties to look at the long term and invest for our future.”

“We cannot predict future gas prices, and they should drop when the conflict in Iran ends. We should help Canadians right now instead of passing a long-term plan that costs taxpayers too much.”

“Madam Speaker, no one can predict what the price of gas will be one month, three months or six months from now. When the conflict in Iran ends, the expectation is that gas prices will go down. Why does my colleague not want to help Canadians now, when they really need it, instead of proposing a longer-term measure that will cost taxpayers a lot of money?”

“The member says his party pushed the government to help with the cost of living. But the Conservatives have voted against helping Canadians for ten years. They voted against cheaper child care, food programs for schools, and money for families with children. Even though they supported pausing the gas tax, their record shows they vote against helping people. When did he actually start wanting to help Canadians with costs?”

“Madam Speaker, I heard something quite surprising from my colleague. He said that the government had implemented a measure to help with the cost of living because of pressure from the Conservatives. If we were to wait for the Conservatives before helping Canadians, there would not have been much help for the past 10 years. Yes, this time, they supported us in suspending the excise tax on gasoline. However, when it came time to vote for the Canada child benefit, to create a national school food program or to offer affordable child care, what did they do? They voted no every time. My colleague said that he is in favour of putting money back in Canadians’ pockets. However, when we look at his voting record, it is quite the opposite. I have a question for him. Since when has he been in favour of implementing measures to help Canadians cope with the cost of living?”

“I agree that pausing the fuel tax is a good idea. An expert told our committee that gas prices could return to normal in about 14 weeks. I want to know if the member wants to keep this tax break going even after prices drop.”

“Madam Speaker, it is great to be in this House and great to hear the member’s speech. Although we often disagree on numerous matters, we can agree on one thing, which is that suspending and extending the suspension on the fuel excise tax is an important measure the government put forward. We heard from an economist yesterday at the finance committee who said that prices on gas and diesel could normalize from the Strait of Hormuz opening again, as early as 14 weeks from now. Although the member opposite has often talked about fiscal prudence in this House, I wonder if he is advocating to extend the relief for Canadians well beyond prices normalizing and coming down.”

“I want the House to pass this bill. It keeps the federal tax off fuel until January 2027 and then cuts it in half until March. Pausing this tax lowers gas prices by about 10 cents a litre and saves people about $5 every time they fill up their car. High prices are caused by global problems, not Canada, and our economy is strong enough to afford this relief.”

“Madam Speaker, it is great to be here to participate in the debate this afternoon. I will be sharing my time with the member for Pickering—Brooklin, my wonderful colleague. I am honoured to participate in today’s debate. The world is changing rapidly. The United States is imposing new tariffs on Canada. At the same time, conflicts in Europe and the Middle East are driving up prices around the world. Conservatives may want to blame Canada and Canadians for these global trends, as they tend to do in this House regularly, every single day. They seem to blame the government for factors out of our control or blame Canadians and try to use their hardships for political gain. However, the fact is that these higher costs are felt right here at home and all around the world, from Canadians driving to work and running errands to businesses transporting food, building materials and other essential goods across the country. In response, our government is focused on what we can control: strengthening our economic resilience, building a stronger and more independent country and making life more affordable for Canadians. Economic uncertainty and rising costs have made affordability a top concern for families and businesses across our country. That is why one of our government’s priorities is to help Canadians keep more of their hard-earned money. As we strengthen Canada for the long term, we are also providing immediate support to help Canadians bridge the gap to a brighter future. Our government is taking action by diversifying Canada’s trade relationships. We have signed over 20 new trade and security agreements in under a year. We are maintaining responsible fiscal management. We have found $60 billion in savings from government operational improvements, and we are supporting Canadians facing pressure from everyday expenses. I want to begin by highlighting how Bill C-38, the Canadian fuel affordability act, is a key part of that effort. First, allow me to recall the support our government delivered last spring to help Canadians cope with elevated fuel costs. In the spring of this year, we introduced a temporary suspension of the federal fuel excise tax on gasoline, aviation gasoline, both leaded and unleaded, diesel fuel and aviation fuel in general. This pause reduced federal fuel excise tax rates to zero cents per litre. The measure quickly translated into lower fuel prices for Canadians, with tax savings of 10¢ per litre on gasoline and four cents per litre on diesel. The positive effects of that measure were felt immediately. The morning after the suspension took effect, gasoline prices fell by 11¢ per litre on the very first day, demonstrating that the savings were quickly passed on to consumers. The suspension had been set to end after September 7 on Labour Day; however, this program was kept flexible by design. Like many of my colleagues, I spent the summer hearing from families and businesses in my riding of Whitby that were thankful for the relief that the spring announcement provided, but curious if it would remain in place amid stubbornly high prices. That is why, before the September 7 deadline, our government chose to announce its intention to extend the suspension of the federal fuel excise tax until January 31, 2027. That was for an additional five months, and then it would be stepped back by 50% through the next two months, to March 31, when it would go back to the full rate. This measure has already brought down everyday costs for Canadians, including those in the trucking, food, agriculture, housing, construction and delivery sectors. The support provided to Canadians is substantial. The estimated additional fiscal impact of extending the suspension of the federal fuel excise tax is approximately $2.9 billion. As a result, Canadians are expected to receive an estimated $5.3 billion in total tax relief in 2026-27. By extending the federal fuel excise tax suspension, Canadians will save approximately five dollars on a typical 50-litre tank fill-up at the gas pump. As members can see, this measure would make a noticeable difference for Canadians and has done so. We are grateful that we have the fiscal capacity to extend it further. By lowering costs at the pump and across Canadian supply chains, the government is actually helping Canadians keep more of their hard-earned money while protecting the economy from the pressures that mount beyond our borders. We must not listen to those who tell us that Canada is broken. The fact is that Canada’s economy has remained incredibly resilient in the face of global challenges. In fact, the International Monetary Fund projects that Canada will have the second-fastest economic growth in the G7 this year and next. This strong fiscal performance has reinforced our position. As noted earlier this year in the spring economic update, Canada’s projected deficit is now more than $11 billion lower than forecasted in budget 2025, giving us greater capacity to build a stronger and fairer country for all. Over the past year, we have used part of the increase in revenues to fund measures that make life more affordable and support Canadians. These investments are delivering meaningful results for Canadians in a time of need. At the same time, we are lowering costs today, while investing in a stronger, more resilient and more independent economy for the future. For example, we will work with provinces and territories to double Canada’s electricity supply by 2050 to deliver clean, reliable and affordable energy produced at home. Over the last year, we have also signed more than 20 new trade and security deals across five continents. Our government has already taken significant action to lower costs for Canadians. As of July 1, 2025, we cut income tax for 22 million Canadians by lowering their first personal income tax rate from 15% to 14%. This measure provides up to $420 in annual tax relief per person, or up to $840 for a dual-income family. We also eliminated the goods and services tax on new homes priced up to $1 million for first-time homebuyers, and reduced it on new homes priced between $1 million and $1.5 million. In Ontario, our government signed an agreement to waive the full 13% GST on new home purchases under $1 million, which will save the average family $130,000 on a $1-million home in Ontario. This is really good news for Canadians who want to enter the housing market. This relief has brought home ownership within reach for more Canadians, especially young families who have struggled or been locked out of the housing market. Effective April 1, 2025, we eliminated the federal consumer carbon price, delivering direct savings at the pump. That same day, we removed the requirement for provinces and territories to impose the consumer carbon price and delivered additional support for more than 12 million Canadians. We also launched the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit. It provides a family of four up to $1,890 this year and about $1,400 a year for the next four years, and provides a single person up to $950 this year and about $700 each year for the following four years. Let us just remember that cheques for the third instalment of that groceries and essentials benefit went out yesterday to approximately 12 million Canadians who benefit from this measure, this enhancement to the GST rebate, which is now called the groceries and essentials benefit, with an average of $340 for a family of four. This is significant support right before Thanksgiving to make life just a little easier for families who are struggling with the elevated costs of many goods and essentials. We also introduced automated federal benefits starting in the 2026 tax year to ensure up to 5.5 million low-income Canadians automatically receive the benefits they qualify for by the 2028 tax year. We also made the national school food program permanent. While Conservative MPs might like to call that program garbage or make absurd claims in the House regularly that there is no food in a food program, on this side of the House, we believe that 400,000 more kids getting fed at school is a good thing, and we would not deprive them and their families of the approximate $800 of savings on groceries. We feel like that is worth fighting for. In conclusion, I could go on and on, but the fact is that Canada is well positioned to withstand the external pressures arising from an increasingly fragmented and uncertain world. We certainly cannot control global forces. The Strait of Hormuz is not within our control to reopen, but we can control how we respond here at home. This is why we are lowering costs for Canadians. We are supporting families and workers. We are strengthening Canada’s economic resilience and independence. We will continue to build the strongest economy in the G7, one that creates prosperity and opportunities for future generations. I look forward to the questions that I know are coming from the opposition members.”

• Echo ×29

  A repeated line

  “We introduced the Canada groceries and essentials benefit.”

  Said 29 times by 19 members since April 23.

  Every time it was said →

“We have taken real steps to make life more affordable. We sent grocery benefits to families, gave businesses tax deductions to invest and grow, and paused the fuel tax. I want the Conservatives to support this bill so we can keep the fuel tax pause in place.”

“Madam Speaker, I am glad to get the member opposite’s question, which I always appreciate. Our government has done a lot of things to make life more affordable for Canadians. We have, as I said in my speech, launched the Canada groceries and essentials benefit. The third instalment of those cheques went out just yesterday. That is $1,890 for a family of four to help make life a bit more affordable. We also just moved forward with announcing the productivity mega deduction, which is a measure that I am sure the Conservatives would support because of its immediate expensing. It is really generous tax deductions for new business investment that will enhance productivity in Canada and will support every one of our industries, including our agriculture and manufacturing industries, all across the country. We also suspended the fuel excise tax and are now extending it. I hope the members opposite will support this.”

“Our government is helping people afford basic needs like groceries. We are also building a stronger economy by creating jobs and investing in housing, defence, and infrastructure.”

“Madam Speaker, I can say we are supporting a stronger country and a more resilient economy for all Canadians. We are focused on the affordability measures that every Canadian can take advantage of. That could be by helping to afford groceries and essentials on a monthly basis, where we know Canadian households are cash-strapped, or creating jobs all across Canada by boosting productivity and ensuring that we have the generational investments in housing, defence and infrastructure that the country needs, so we can serve the foreign markets that we are developing quite quickly.”

• 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 →

“The national school food program feeds kids breakfast and lunch, but the Conservatives voted against it. I want the member to tell us how this program has helped families in his riding.”

“Madam Speaker, I am really pleased that my colleague talked about Canada’s national school food program, because, as he may recall, I introduced a bill for that in the House, and, in the end, the government went ahead and created this program, which is now permanent. When I visit schools in my riding, I see free breakfasts and free or discounted lunches. However, as my colleague said, the Conservatives voted against a program that is so important for families and for children who go to school. I would also like my colleague to tell me how this kind of program has helped many children and probably many families in his riding make ends meet.”

“Our national school food program feeds 400,000 more kids across Canada each year so they can learn and grow. The Conservatives talk about high food costs, but they voted against this program to feed hungry children.”

“Madam Speaker, I really appreciate my colleague’s work in this area. We shared many conversations and had many meetings about the national school food program and the importance of getting the federal government to invest in it because of how essential it is for the growth and development of our young people. The program ensures that they have the nourishment they need to grow, develop, retain information and learn at school. Having that program in place as a federal investment has allowed us to reach 400,000 more children per year right across Canada. That is essential. I have three daughters, and if any one of them were struggling to meet their daily intake of nutrition, I would want to solve that gap. I cannot believe the Conservatives voted against a national school food program. They actually chose to deprive 400,000 kids of the nourishment they need to develop and grow into responsible, contributing members of our society. I cannot fathom how shameful it is to see the Conservatives stand up in this House every day and try to lecture us about Canadians’ affordability challenges and woes, which are quite real. The fact that they are standing up and saying we need to do something about food and the cost of food, while voting against the interests of children across this country, is abhorrent at the very least.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 2 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 →