“Seniors should be able to afford basic necessities. Their benefits should rise with inflation to match the real cost of living. Government taxes and rising costs have hurt seniors and their savings. The government needs to lower taxes and cut the deficit to bring down everyday costs.”

“Madam Speaker, seniors, who have worked hard their entire lives, should be able to afford basic necessities. Their benefits should be indexed to inflation so they keep pace with the real cost of living. However, years of Liberal taxes and rising costs have eroded seniors’ purchasing power and stressed their savings. The government needs to cut the deficit and lower taxes to help bring down everyday costs so that seniors can live with dignity.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 26 of 100

  None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“I support this bill because pausing the fuel tax helps families, but the government must do more. Canadians pay too much for diesel because of federal taxes and regulations. The government should remove all federal taxes on diesel until Canada Day, end the carbon taxes, and approve more pipelines and refineries.”

“Madam Speaker, I would like to take a quick minute to note that Canada mourns four of its soldiers. On Saturday, fire overtook a training exercise at CFB Wainwright, as we all know. Thirty-nine soldiers were injured, some critically, and four soldiers were killed: Sergeant Morgan Wong, Private Shaun Farrell, Private Aidan Goulding and Private Hayden Lykkemark. At CFB Wainwright, Canadian soldiers train to defend our country. They serve alongside allies and uphold the values that bind Canadians together: courage, duty, sacrifice and service. Their loss belongs to the whole nation. To their families, their comrades, the injured and those who rushed to help, Canada owes them our gratitude, our prayers and our lasting support. On behalf of the people of Calgary Heritage, we will remember these soldiers for how they lived: in service to their country, in loyalty to each other and with the quiet courage of those who accept responsibility for others. In Calgary Heritage, the work trucks leave the yards in the southwest before dawn. They haul materials to job sites across the city, and then turn south past the city city limits where the farms begin. Those same diesel engines pull the tractors that put the seeds in the ground and the combines that bring the crops home. When the price at the pump moves, the arithmetic hits the operator first, then the grocer and then the family filling a cart on a Saturday afternoon. Last month, diesel reached a record $2.75 a litre. Even after the spike eased, it was still averaging roughly $2.64. That is about 70% higher than a year earlier and nearly 60% higher than the weeks before the war in Iran began interrupting shipments out of the Persian Gulf. Global events explain why prices rose everywhere. They do not explain why Canadians are paying roughly 24¢ a litre more than Americans and about 31¢ more than the world average. The difference is not geology; it is policy. Statistics Canada reports that gasoline prices have risen 27.8% over the past year, energy costs 19% and transportation 8.4%. Diesel is a cost of living issue, because it is a cost of making and moving nearly everything. Every increase reaches the family filling a grocery cart. Bill C-38 would extend the temporary suspension of the federal excise tax on diesel until the end of January. Conservatives will support it. Every dollar that stays in a working family’s pocket matters. We fought for the first cut. We fought for the extension. The Liberals followed. The bill would still place an expiry date on relief: Half the tax returns in February and the full rate returns on April 1. Also, the GST continues to apply, and the clean fuel regulations continue to add costs that the government’s own officials estimate at six to seven cents a litre today. The Parliamentary Budget Officer projects it could reach 16¢ by 2030. The industrial carbon tax also continues to raise the cost of production. Taken together, these measures leave Canadians paying a premium that global markets alone cannot justify. A round-trip semi-haul between Montreal and Toronto that cost about $850 on New Year’s Day now costs roughly $1,400. Rail fuel surcharges for October stand as high as 73% above early August levels. Some large farms are spending as much as $5,000 a day on diesel. Independent grocers operate on margins of about 2%. Those costs do not stay on the loading dock. They appear on the shelf. The leader of the opposition put the same facts before the House on September 23 and again the following day. He described a full-scale diesel crisis. He noted that with the fourth-largest oil supply on earth, we do not enjoy the lowest prices. He identified three persistent causes: a weaker dollar, insufficient refining and transport capacity because governments have refused to get out of the way, and taxes that continue to apply. He called for an emergency fuel relief plan that would remove all federal taxes on diesel until at least Canada Day, permanently eliminate production taxes and set a national goal of producing one million barrels of diesel a day. Those are the measures on this side of the House that were advanced in successive opposition motions. Each time, the government and its partners have voted them down. Just last week, the International Energy Agency warned that global diesel shortages could persist well into 2027. Why is the Liberal government scheduling higher fuel taxes while the crisis remains unresolved? Conservatives support Bill C-38 because partial relief is better than none. We will continue to press for the full plan: removing the remaining federal taxes on diesel until at least Canada Day; scrapping the clean fuel regulations and the industrial carbon tax; and clearing the path for the pipelines, refineries and storage that would let Canadian diesel reach Canadian markets. The objective is simple: eliminate the premium Canadians now pay; raise domestic production; and ensure that the fuel that moves our food, our freight and our families is made here and priced here. A decade of Liberal carbon taxes and expanding bureaucracy have eroded the gains of Conservative GST cuts and smaller government from over a decade ago. Canada has the fourth-largest oil reserves, and we should be among the best-prepared nations to withstand an energy shock. Instead, our 16 refineries operated at roughly 90% of capacity last year. Ontario and Quebec refineries import more than 99% of their crude from the United States, while 93% of the crude we export moves south. There is still no pipeline connecting western Canada to eastern Canada. Energy east, proposed in 2013 and withdrawn in 2017, would have closed that gap. It was stopped not by markets but by a deliberate policy of obstruction that treated major energy infrastructure as something to be delayed or defeated. The last new refinery, Sturgeon in Alberta, took years and more than $10 billion. New capacity requires permits, pipelines, storage and a regulatory environment that treats builders as partners instead of as adversaries. How did a country so abundantly endowed allow itself to become so vulnerable? Russia’s invasion has cut diesel exports and weaponized energy. Iran has turned Hormuz into an instrument of coercion while funding proxies across the Middle East. Conflict threatens the Red Sea, Bab el-Mandeb and the Suez Canal. Venezuela’s collapse has removed another major supplier. In a world of energy chaos, Canada could be instrumental in achieving energy security, security for our people and security for the world. Imagine if over the last decade, and especially from a year and a half ago, Liberals had made energy security a national undertaking: prepermitted projects, partnerships with first nations, approved pipelines to new markets with shovels in the ground today, more refining, and transport and storage ready for this age of disruption. Imagine Canadian energy reaching our provinces and allies at scale because we had built the means to move it. Instead, the Prime Minister declares that Canada will become an energy superpower while preserving the net-zero orthodoxy and antidevelopment machinery that has held Canadian production back. The United States holds a strategic petroleum reserve. After major withdrawals, it has fallen to approximately less than 20% of its accessible capacity. Today the United States is searching for diesel in all the wrong places. Canada could have stabilized supply had we built capacity before the emergency. That is why Conservatives have proposed a strategic reserve of refined fuels and emergency prepermitting for refineries, for our growth as a country. I appreciate the opportunity to address the House today and conclude my remarks here.”

• Echo ×8

  A repeated line

  “Canada has the fourth-largest oil reserves in the world.”

  Said 8 times by 7 members since October 5.

  Every time it was said →

“The government talks about growth, but it does not make real decisions to build our economy. It delays projects for energy, critical minerals, farming, and trade between provinces. Until the government makes big choices that actually help these industries grow, its plans are meaningless and do not help Canadians.”

“Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the analysis, but I will say this. We have seen, over the last year and a half, nothing but illusions around the potential of getting Canadian energy to market. We have seen decisions to make a decision, and potentially having another decision for, potentially, a shovel in the ground at some point in the next 10 years. The big, catalytic, transformational decisions around growth that the country needs to make today on energy, strategic reserve for critical minerals, agriculture and aquaculture simply have not been made. Even our own interprovincial barriers have not successfully been lowered. We are talking about hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of potential in our own country that should unleash the potential of what Canada could do for energy and resource security around the world, yet here is a government that goes around making big deals but does not produce a single actual decision to pursue the radically pro-growth policies our country and our people demand. Until that happens, everything else is just conjecture. It is not real, and it is not serving the people in this country the way it should.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“In my riding, we pay $2 a litre for gas, which is 55 cents more than Calgary. That happens because we send Alberta oil to Washington state to be refined and buy it back. I am asking my colleague to talk about the need to invest in infrastructure.”

“Madam Speaker, I am very happy that my colleague from Calgary Heritage raised the issue of refining capacity within Canada. It is certainly an issue in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, where my riding is and where I live. We sell crude produced in Alberta, which gets piped across the Rocky Mountains. We sell it to refineries in Washington state at reduced costs. They refine it, and then we buy it back at market value. We are paying two dollars a litre, which is 55¢ a litre more than in Calgary. I wonder if my colleague could comment on the importance of infrastructure investment.”

“Energy projects protect our national security. China uses trade as a weapon, and other countries are building energy facilities quickly. Canada is not keeping up, and we need the infrastructure to get our resources to market.”

“Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague’s commentary a great deal, as well as the great work he does on behalf of his constituents every single day. Energy infrastructure is critical to our national security. This is a world in which commerce has been weaponized by Beijing and in which our supply chains, our investment, our technology and our energy are all interwoven together. How those supply chains stabilize international markets and unleash productivity in this country is critical. We actually need the infrastructure to get our resources to market. We have watched our rivals around the world, and even our partners, proceed at incredible speed. We have watched massive energy production facilities emerging in Beijing and around China. We have watched the world respond to that, with refineries and plant capacity out of the United States and with terminals in Germany to be able to take LNG. We have seen massive undertakings in the last number of years, but in Canada, we have not been moving at the same pace.”

“My party supports building more oil refineries in Canada. It will create jobs for Canadians and help our country rely on its own energy.”

“Madam Speaker, our party stands for building more refining capacity to generate more value in Canada for Canadian jobs, for Canadian workers and for Canadians. Our country should be more self-reliant when it comes to our energy proposition for the world, and our capability to do so is evident in our people, our industry and our ingenuity.”

“I will vote for this bill to keep pausing the fuel tax, but it is not enough. High fuel prices make everything from food to shipping cost more. We also need to grow wages, build our own refineries, and fix our economy so life is truly affordable.”

“Madam Speaker, before I start speaking to the act to amend the Excise Tax Act, I just want to reflect for a moment on the four Canadian Armed Forces members who were killed in a training exercise at CFB Wainwright over the weekend: Sergeant Morgan Wong from Alberta, Private Shaun Farrell of Saskatchewan, Private Aidan Goulding of North Vancouver, British Columbia, and Private Hayden Lykkemark from my hometown, Langley, British Columbia. I offer my condolences to their families, their friends and their fellow soldiers. Of course, our prayers continue for the 39 people who were injured. We wish them all the best. I will be sharing my time with the member for Oshawa. Today we are talking about the Canadian fuel affordability act. Canadians should understand why Bill C-38 exists in the first place and why it is here and being debated. The legislation was introduced by the Liberals, but it was not the Liberals’ idea. This bill exists because Canadians pushed back and Conservatives fought for them. We fought for them because we understand that the affordability crisis hits home. Certainly, people in my riding are telling me about that. For months, Conservatives warned that rising fuel prices during an affordability crisis would make life more expensive for families, tradespeople and commuters. The Liberals insisted that higher fuel taxes would not significantly impact affordability, but today, after months of pressure, they are effectively admitting what Canadians already knew: taxes on fuel matter. It matters a lot, because it is inflationary. When fuel costs go up, everything goes up: trucking, farming, delivering, manufacturing and processing. All these costs get passed on to consumers, and that is why Conservatives support extending the fuel tax suspension. Any relief for working Canadians is good news. Let us be honest. Bill C-38 would not solve the underlying problems of our current affordability crisis. It would simply extend temporary relief before these taxes would eventually return in a matter of a couple of months. Canadians do not need temporary Liberal band-aid solutions. They need a government that understands affordability and recognizes that families are already stretched to the limit. Bill C-38 would be a step in the right direction, but it would be a small step. Conservatives will keep fighting for lower costs, lower taxes and a more affordable Canada. Let us talk about what fuel prices mean in the real world. Today, drivers in British Columbia pay the highest gasoline prices in Canada. According to my research on GasBuddy yesterday, regular gasoline in Langley is roughly two dollars a litre. I know that is what I paid. In Calgary, it is about $1.45 a litre. In Hamilton, it is about $1.70. Imagine a family that drives a pickup truck or an SUV with a 100-litre tank. To fill up in Langley costs $200. In Calgary, it is also expensive but $55 less. In Hamilton, it is also expensive at $170 but $30 less than what we pay in Langley. For many working Canadians, this is not just a one-time investment. It is not even a monthly investment. It is a weekly expense, week after week. We can imagine all the thousands of dollars extra that British Columbians are paying compared with other Canadians, and that amounts to thousands of dollars every year that could better go toward groceries, mortgage payments, kids’ sports or retirement investment savings. That is why Conservatives continue to argue that the government should stop treating gasoline and diesel as a source of tax collection. Canadians deserve relief. They deserve a government that understands just how fuel prices affect everyday life. There is an important lesson that often gets missed in the affordability crisis. Affordable living is not just about prices. It is also about income. I am going to take just one example. In Bellingham, Washington, about an hour’s drive from Vancouver, gasoline prices are often similar to what drivers in metro Vancouver pay, yet fuel generally is more affordable for Americans. That is because affordability is ultimately determined by purchasing power. Two people can pay the same price at the gas pump, but if one earns significantly more, fuel consumes a smaller portion of their paycheque. That is the challenge that Canadians are facing today, and I would say that this is right across the board, right across the country. Canadians are not just dealing with high prices. After 10 years of Liberal Party mismanagement of our economy, we are dealing with stubbornly weak productivity growth, slower wage growth and declining purchasing power. That is what we have after a decade of the Liberals. The former Liberal finance minister recognized this as a problem. I heard her say in the House once, during one of her budget speeches, that Canada’s lagging productivity measures is Canada’s Achilles heel. I guess she tried to convince her fellow colleagues that it was a problem, but they continued focusing on the distribution of wealth rather than growing the Canadian economy. That is still the problem we have today. Yes, lower fuel taxes help and affordability relief matters, but Canadians need something bigger. They need a stronger productivity growth. They need more investment. They need better-paying jobs. The goal should not be just to make us less poor with a temporary band-aid solution. The goal should be to make prosperity possible again. That is what Conservatives focus on. Canadians are asking a very reasonable question: Why are Canadians selling raw resource material at a discount to Americans only to buy refined product back at market value? There are two reasons. One is that the Lower Mainland does not have enough refining capacity to fill the demand for gasoline, fuel and diesel. The second is because, with the lack of market diversification for Canada, we have one buyer for a product and that is the Americans. Therefore, we are price takers, not price setters. We sell crude oil produced in Alberta to the Americans at reduced prices and we buy back a refined product at fair market value. It is the opposite of what financial advisers tell us, which is to buy low and sell high. We do the opposite with our energy economics. Just across the border sits the Cherry Point Refinery near Blaine, one of the largest refineries in the northwest. Much of the crude oil process in Washington state originates here in Canada and is refined there. It comes back to us as finished product. That means higher prices at the pump, fewer Canadian jobs, less investment, lower government revenues and weaker economic growth. Canadians should not wonder why one of the world’s richest countries in energy production struggles to fully benefit from its own resources. Affordability is not just about taxes, but about infrastructure, energy policy, market access and ensuring Canadians benefit from their own resources. Bill C-38 provides some welcome relief, but Conservatives are fighting for something much bigger. The real issue is not simply the cost of gasoline, but the cost of living. Canadians are working hard, playing by the rules, doing everything they were told to do that would lead to success, yet too many are falling behind. The price of fuel is behind most of the inflationary pressure. Canadians deserve a government that understands how these costs compound. That is why Conservatives support fuel tax relief. We will vote for this bill, even though we think it is not enough. It is a small step in the right direction. Our objective is lower taxes, higher wages, more investments, stronger economic growth and greater energy security for Canadians. Conservatives will bring back the Canadian promise that a good job would buy an affordable home, on a nice street, in a safe neighbourhood, with a fridge full of affordable food, and a car in the carport with affordable fuel.”

• Echo ×8

  A repeated line

  “It is a step in the right direction.”

  Said 8 times by 8 members since May 1.

  Every time it was said →

“We support policies that improve the economy. The Liberals have mismanaged money for ten years. Now the government spends billions on interest payments to bankers instead of spending it on health care and seniors.”

“Madam Speaker, we support the fundamentals that are going to improve our economy. One thing that we never hear from the Liberals is how much money the federal government spends on interest payments. This is money going to bankers and investors, money that could be going to health care, health transfers or helping seniors, but, no, we spend billions and billions of dollars on interest payments because of 10 years of mismanagement by the government.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 7 of 100

  None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“I agree with my colleague. Truck drivers in our area are struggling with high diesel prices. I want him to explain how a Conservative government would give Canadians immediate relief from fuel costs.”

“Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague from Langley Township—Fraser Heights delivered an incredible speech and touched on the main points that Canadians are facing today. I know that the hon. member has also dealt with the truck driver members in our community, who did a convoy from Abbotsford all the way down to Vancouver. They went through the member’s riding. They were struggling to deal with high diesel prices, as the motion dealt with. I would like to ask my hon. colleague how we would give immediate relief to Canadians and what we would have done differently as a Conservative government if we were given the opportunity.”

“High fuel prices hurt British Columbia businesses, especially truckers. Conservatives have always said we should get rid of the carbon tax to help the economy. The Liberals are finally agreeing with us that we need to lower these costs.”

“Madam Speaker, that is a great question. We have neighbouring ridings and we are way out at the other end of the country. Transportation is a very big part of what keeps British Columbia and the Vancouver area connected with the rest of Canada. Fuel prices, I think, probably touch us more than anything. I share the frustration that truckers have about high fuel prices that just seem out of control. Their businesses become very difficult to operate. It is not just truckers. It is almost every industry, but it for sure impacts them. What would we do differently? We advocated for cutting the carbon tax because we said it was not helpful for the Canadian economy. I am very happy that the Liberals have finally acknowledged that we had it right all along and that they are now supporting the concept of lowering prices for everybody through reducing or getting rid of the carbon tax.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 38 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 would invest in energy projects and find new markets for our fuel. Liquefied natural gas is a great idea. Prime Minister Trudeau once said there was no business case for it, but now we are building it. The Liberals are finally realizing that energy projects help our economy.”

“Madam Speaker, my colleague probably anticipates the answer. Of course we would invest in energy infrastructure. Absolutely we would invest in diversifying the market. Liquefied natural gas is an excellent idea. I cannot help but reflect on what former prime minister Trudeau said when the German chancellor came to him and said they wanted to buy liquefied natural gas, and he said there was no business case to be made for liquefied natural gas. Today we are building it. I thank the Liberals for finally getting on board and understanding that energy infrastructure is important for our economy.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 8 of 100

  Only 8% of this statement directly addressed the matter under debate.

  See full analysis →

“I support this bill because it temporarily lowers fuel taxes. But it does not go far enough. Life is too expensive right now, and people in my riding are struggling to afford food and gas. The government should remove all federal taxes on gasoline and diesel until summer 2027, and it should permanently cancel the carbon tax on industry.”

“Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise this evening on behalf of Oshawa to speak to Bill C-38, which is legislation that would extend temporary relief from federal fuel taxes at a time when Canadians are struggling to afford the basic necessities of life. Earlier today, the Liberal government voted against our Conservative motion to recognize two simple things: The Liberals have been in government for 11 years, and Canada is in an affordability crisis. Every opposition party voted in favour of acknowledging what Canadians are actually experiencing every day, yet the Liberals said, “No, that’s not the case.” Everyone knows that the first step to fixing a problem is admitting that there is one, and the government cannot even bring itself to acknowledge the affordability crisis facing Canadian families. What makes today’s earlier vote particularly remarkable is that tonight we are now debating legislation introduced by the very same government to extend temporary relief from federal fuel taxes, because Canadians cannot afford higher costs. The reality is that the government knows Canadians are struggling, and after months of persistent Conservative pressure, the Liberals have finally been forced to back down from their planned increase of fuel taxes. I represent Oshawa, which I like to mention as often as I can, because we are a hard-working city built by generations of auto workers, manufacturers, small business owners and families who have contributed so much to Canada’s greater economy. These are Canadians who work hard and pay their taxes, and they expect that their paycheques will be enough to provide for themselves and their families. Yet, increasingly, they are finding that no matter how hard they work, they simply cannot afford life. When the price of gasoline rises, those families in Oshawa do not suddenly have the option of driving less. They need to get to work, pick up their children and purchase groceries, except now they are paying more to do those very same things. The impact of higher fuel costs does not stop, of course, at the gas pump. It is common sense that when it costs more to transport food, deliver goods, construct homes and operate businesses, those additional expenses are ultimately passed on to consumers. Families end up paying more at the grocery store, more for household essentials and more for services they rely on every day. Even the Liberals’ own legislation acknowledges that trucking, agriculture, housing, construction and delivery sectors benefit from fuel tax relief, which raises an important question. If the government now recognizes that lower fuel taxes help make life more affordable, why has it taken months and months of Conservative pressure to get it to act, and that is if we can even call it action? Conservatives care, yet Liberals cause inflation and an affordability crisis, then throw out breadcrumbs of half measures and gaslight Canadians by saying things like “Affordability is the best it has been in...a decade.” We remember when the Prime Minister said that. In Oshawa, we understand how important affordable fuel and transportation are to our local economy. Our community is home to General Motors Canada, automotive suppliers, skilled tradespeople and thousands of workers whose livelihoods depend on a strong manufacturing sector. Whether it is an auto worker going to the plant for his shift or a tradesperson travelling between job sites across the Durham region, a small business owner making deliveries or a truck driver transporting goods across Highway 401, these Canadians rely on affordable fuel to earn a living and support their families. For small business owners already struggling with rising operating expenses, higher fuel costs mean less money to invest in their businesses, hire employees or keep prices affordable for customers. For working families, it means even more of their hard-earned money disappearing before they have paid their rent, purchased groceries or covered their monthly bills. The figures are clear. They show that gasoline prices have increased by 25.7%, while overall energy costs have risen by 16.6%, contributing to higher transportation costs and adding further pressure to household budgets. However, Canadians do not need to see those very detailed statistics to understand the consequences of rising costs because they see them every single day in their own communities. We all can. I recently spoke about the extraordinary work being done by Simcoe Hall Settlement House in Oshawa, where Tiffany Kift shared with me the heartbreaking reality facing vulnerable families in our community. Simcoe Hall is now serving more than 3,600 people every month and has been forced to limit food bank visits to 70 households per day. Because the organization simply does not have the resources to help everyone, it is forced to turn people away every single day. Among those seeking assistance are seniors, young adults, parents and even families with two incomes who cannot afford to put food on the table. One senior, Sue, is 83 and is still working part-time to help supplement her fixed income. She told me last week that she walks down the aisle like she did in war times. It reminds her of that. She looks at the meat, checking every price, and says, “Oh, I can’t do that. No, I can’t buy that. I can’t even afford pork chops. I guess we won’t have any meat this week.” While demand for food assistance continues to grow, donations are declining at Simcoe Hall. It is down approximately 33% in financial donations, and community food drives are also bringing in only a third of what it would normally expect. When more Canadians need help while fewer Canadians can afford to give, we have a serious affordability problem, regardless of whether the Liberals are willing to acknowledge it. Honestly, I do not know how they live with themselves. This brings me back to Bill C-38. The legislation would extend the temporary suspension of federal fuel excise taxes until January 31, 2027, before restoring those taxes at half the regular rates for February and March. Conservatives obviously welcome any measure that helps Canadians keep more of their hard-earned money. That is the clear distinction. We support a measure that helps Canadians keep more of their hard-earned money, and we are proud that the persistent pressure from the Conservatives helped force the Liberal government to delay its planned fuel tax increase. However, a temporary extension is not enough. The government is effectively telling Canadians that they can have some relief today, but they should prepare to pay more again in the coming months. What exactly does the government expect to change between now and February? Will groceries suddenly become affordable? Will families in Oshawa suddenly have hundreds of extra dollars left over at the end of every month? Will small businesses no longer be struggling with the cost of keeping their doors open? Of course not, and that is precisely why Conservatives have called for more meaningful and lasting relief. Our Conservative economic action plan calls on the government to remove all federal taxes on gasoline and diesel at least until Canada Day 2027. That is not only the federal excise tax, but also the GST on fuel and the costs associated with the clean fuel regulations, all while permanently cancelling the industrial carbon tax. Together, these measures would save Canadians 25¢ per litre at the pump and provide as much as $1,000 in savings for the average family. They get to keep more money in their pockets. Obviously, we support a measure where Canadians can keep their money, not where we take it first and then give them a pittance back. Canadians should not have to depend on food banks, government rebates or temporary tax relief simply to afford the basic necessities of life. They should be able to work hard, earn a decent living and support their families. The Liberals today said that we are not in an affordability crisis. They would not admit it; there is nothing to see here. That sounds like every narcissist I have ever known gaslighting. Conservatives will continue to fight for lower taxes, more affordable fuel and food, good-paying Canadian jobs and an economy where hard-working families can get ahead. We welcome the relief contained in Bill C-38, but Canadians deserve more than another temporary Liberal half measure. They deserve meaningful, lasting relief that makes a real difference in their everyday lives. A government that refuses to admit there is an affordability crisis, as the government did today, cannot be trusted to solve it.”

• Echo ×8

  A repeated line

  “Canada is officially in an affordability crisis.”

  Said 8 times by 7 members since October 8.

  Every time it was said →

“I support this bill, even though it does not go far enough. Real help means letting Canadians keep their own money, not taking it in taxes and handing back a small fraction.”

“Mr. Speaker, obviously I support solid investments, but the fact of the matter is this, and I will say it again. We are constantly gaslighted that Canadians are doing just fine and that there is not an affordability crisis. We are told that we do not support measures that help Canadians because we vote against the Liberals’ so-called supports and programs, when the truth of the matter is that what helps Canadians is allowing them to keep their own money in their pockets in the first place. That is why we will support this half measure. It is not enough, but it is something that would keep money in Canadians’ pockets to begin with, rather than taking their money, giving them a pittance back and saying, “Are we not wonderful?””

“I want to ask the member what more the government should have done to lower fuel costs. Truck drivers across the country are protesting because diesel prices are too high.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking the hon. member for Oshawa for her great protest against the Liberal government. I know she is doing a fantastic job on the public safety committee as well, making sure she fights for the safety of Canadians. As she sees the votes being cast on both sides of the House, what more could the Liberal government have done to make sure to bring more relief to Canadians at this point, especially when we see convoys happening across the country with truck drivers requesting relief at the pumps, especially for diesel prices?”

“Conservatives have a plan to bring fast relief by permanently removing the industrial carbon tax. The Liberals only lowered the consumer carbon tax to zero because we pressured them to do it, and they take credit for it. They did not cancel it completely, and it could come back.”

“Mr. Speaker, Conservatives have been very clear. We have an economic action plan that would bring relief immediately. One of the major parts of that plan is permanently removing the industrial carbon tax. It is funny to watch the Liberals jump up and down and say how excited and wonderful they are because they cancelled the consumer carbon tax. Meanwhile, the same group of people jumped up and down asking how we dared to suggest that they cancel the consumer carbon tax. They did it because our pressure was effective, and now they are asking, “Are we not wonderful?” It is a crazy world we live in right now in Canada where the Liberals take credit for things that Conservatives have said we must do. Hopefully they will do the same thing with the industrial carbon tax one day, but we should never forget that they did not actually cancel the consumer carbon tax. I will just wait. They have only reduced it to zero, as far as I know. They have not cancelled it completely. I suspect we will see a version of it, and we already have in some ways at the gas pump.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 41 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“I want us to vote for this bill. It is only a small step, but it keeps money in Canadians' pockets. The Liberals made life unaffordable, and their other programs do not fix the problem.”

“Mr. Speaker, I agree. It is an affordability measure. It is a half measure and a small measure, but it is an affordability measure. I will repeat this, because it is very important. We can vote for this small measure because it would keep money in Canadians’ pockets. It is not like the programs and fake supports that keep getting touted as the solutions, which really are just admissions of failure for the government. The Liberals have made life unaffordable. We cannot trust them to fix that. Conservatives know how to get it done. Canadians can trust us.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a comment in debate

  Signal 42 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“I support this bill because any tax cut on fuel helps. But it does not go far enough. It only lowers the fuel tax for a few months and then brings it back. The government should adopt the Conservative plan instead. That plan would remove all federal taxes on gas and diesel until at least Canada Day 2027. High fuel prices hurt farmers, truckers, and families who are struggling to buy food.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is always a true honour to stand up in the House and speak on behalf of the members of Abbotsford—South Langley, who I represent dearly. I want to start by saying that I am splitting my time with the member for Long Range Mountains, who will be speaking after me. Today, I want to talk about something that is concerning for people not only in my riding of Abbotsford—South Langley but across the country: prices at the fuel pumps. As a Conservative team, we have gotten countless emails from across the nation asking for relief at the pumps. From the countless emails that I have gotten, I have seen that many residents in Abbotsford—South Langley are frustrated when filling their tanks. Earlier this year, after constant pressure from my colleagues and I, the Liberals announced half measures up to April 20, removing the excise tax on fuel. If it had been up to them, this September we would have resumed taxes to their full extent, but once again, my Conservative colleagues and I stood up in the House and pushed for relief for all Canadians. We delivered. Earlier this month, the Conservatives announced an emergency fuel relief plan aimed at removing all federal taxes on diesel until at least Canada Day 2027. Unlike the members across the aisle, my colleagues and I believe that Canadians deserve the full relief rather than a third of the relief for a third of the year. Now Bill C-38 has been introduced, and it would extend the fuel excise tax relief until January 31, 2027. The rates would then resume to 50% of the normal amount until March 31, 2027, and the full tax would resume from April 1, 2027, onwards. This bill would provide relief of up to 10¢ per litre on gasoline and four cents on diesel. Then the relief would shrink to half from February onwards, and Canadians would get no relief starting in April 2027. Let us compare that to what we were offering early this month: full tax relief on diesel, which would have provided up to 25¢ per litre in relief until July of next year. It is clear that our plan would have brought more relief to Canadians across the nation, yet the Liberals voted against our motion. The impact of high gas prices goes well beyond families filling up at local gas stations. I think about our farmers, truckers, contractors and small business owners. Fuel is not an option for these Canadians. It is the cost of doing business. A trucker cannot deliver goods without diesel. Our farmers cannot operate equipment without diesel. Contractors cannot carry lumber and tools to a job site on public transit. For millions of Canadians, driving is not a luxury. It is a necessity for how they earn a living and go about their day to day. Just recently, B.C. truck drivers protested against rising diesel prices in the Lower Mainland. The cost of high fuel prices is affecting their day-to-day lives. Many of them are essentially working for free to pay for the fuel that they put in their tanks. Simply extending the excise tax relief is not enough for those whose livelihoods depend on the cost of gas and diesel. The foundation of our society as a whole is built on those who go about their day-to-day jobs depending on gas and diesel. We have to make sure they are able to trust that the government has their backs when things become difficult for them, especially in times like right now, when they are feeling the most pressure at the tanks from province to province across the nation. The reality is that the majority of Canadians believe that the Liberals are providing half measures of relief when they could provide full measures of relief if they were to adopt our Conservative plan. That is the truth. A recent poll found that 63% of Canadians oppose the Prime Minister bringing back the fuel excise tax, including 43% who strongly oppose it. Those numbers also include 72% of seniors, 68% of women and 61% of those who are between the ages of 35 and 54. They are all opposed to a reintroduction of diesel and fuel taxes. Opposition crosses every region across the country: 71% in Manitoba and Saskatchewan; 64% in British Columbia, Alberta and Atlantic Canada; 62% in Ontario; and 60% in Quebec. Instead of listening to Canadians and their concerns, members across the aisle want them to celebrate the half-relief they would be given for only a couple of months. It is ridiculous. I want to emphasize that any relief given for any citizen is 100% good news, and we will 100% agree with any relief the opposing government gives. However, the thing is that it had an opportunity to make sure it could support measures for 100% relief, but the government opposed this. Especially when more relief could be provided, the cost of fuel directly impacts affordability across our country. High diesel costs lead to farmers’ having to pay more for growing the food, and to truckers’ having to pay more to haul that very food across the country. Then it inflates costs, which make it down to the everyday Canadian buying products at the grocery stores. I ask members across the floor a simple question: Are they able to look a single parent in the eye during this struggle and say they brought relief to them to help put meals on the dinner table? I bet that is a hard question for many members to answer, but I ask it on behalf of all Canadians. My colleagues and I acknowledge that there is an energy crisis happening and that it is out of our control. We fully agree with that. However, while these naturally increasing prices on fuel happen, we can take many measures to help Canadians at the pumps. The first step was to adopt the plan that my Conservative colleagues and I put forward two weeks ago. That is why we continue to call on the government to remove all federal taxes on gas and diesel until at least Canada Day 2027 to save Canadians 25¢ per litre at the pump, which would bring $1,000 of relief, savings, for the average Canadian and the average family. That includes seven cents per litre of clean fuel regulations, the GST and the permanent cancellation of the industrial carbon tax so Canadians are not forced to pay more for food and fuel. While the conversation is around government relief measures, I want to also highlight the developing projects around B.C. The B.C. NDP government signed an MOU with the federal government this summer, which was a clear path for the new southern route pipeline, another route alongside the existing energy corridor through the Sumas Prairie region that brought much relief to our community and our country. However, at the same time, we need to make sure that certain vulnerabilities are protected, such as with respect to the flooding that has happened year after year. Farmers have advocated about this countless times. In 2021, when we had the immense floods in the Sumas Prairie and Abbotsford communities, we wanted to make sure we could protect certain lands and bring adequate infrastructure development forward before we had certain pipelines instituted in that area. I bring this up so all Canadians know that while we provide relief and measures for the country, we have to make sure we understand what is important. First of all, that is infrastructure relief and making sure infrastructure is coordinated with the federal government to bring in new projects that benefit all Canadians across the nation but at the same time do not damage the integrity of the Lower Mainland communities. With the measures the government is bringing forward, we need to make sure we have tax relief not just for Canadians at the pumps but across the nation. These are farmers, people with jobs, members and Canadians asking for relief again and again. They want relief at the pumps. They want results from the government. Again and again, we see the failure of representation of what Canadians actually want. I hope the government takes into account what I have said today, and I hope to get some answers.”

• Echo ×3

  A repeated line

  “A recent poll found that 63% of Canadians oppose the Liberals bringing back the fuel excise tax.”

  Said 3 times by 3 members since September 22.

  Every time it was said →

“This debate is simply about making gas cheaper for Canadians. Two weeks ago, the member voted against pausing fuel taxes until July 2027 and ending diesel taxes. Conservatives voted for those cuts, but the government side did not.”

“Mr. Speaker, the answer, the debate, is simple. It is about bringing relief to Canadians at the gas pumps. That is what we are here debating. That is what my hon. colleague had an option of voting for two weeks ago when he decided to vote against the full relief up to Canada Day 2027 and to make sure we could eliminate full diesel taxes for all Canadians and further bring relief for Canadians. This is what we were talking about today. These are the measures our side voted for and strongly believes in. We do not see the same representation on the other side of the House. We do not want to make this about party politics, but that is unfortunately what we have here today.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 43 of 100

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

  See full analysis →
• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 42 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“High diesel prices hurt small businesses in my riding. I want my colleague to talk more about how diesel costs affect businesses.”

“Mr. Speaker, I can certainly relate to many of the things my colleague talked about with respect to things he hears from Canadians, including people in his riding. We are talking about relief at the pumps. I also talked to a lot of small and medium-sized business owners in the beautiful riding I represent, and they are also talking about the impact that increased diesel prices have on their operations. I am wondering if this is something my colleague also experiences, and whether he would like to expand specifically on that aspect of the increased cost of diesel.”

“People in British Columbia have the same fuel problems as people across the country. Truckers cannot afford their gas, monthly payments, or savings for their families. I want the other parties to join us in talking about this.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her fantastic work and her advocacy across her area and across the nation as well. Before I answer the question, I want to let the member know that, yes, we in B.C. have the same problems they have in Ontario and across the nation. Many of our truckers are dealing with the same crisis. They are going about their day-to-day life not able to afford the simple things they should be able to afford. Their second and third fill-ups are so exhausting that they go home and are not able to have their dollar carry through the month to afford the payments they need to make, to carry some relief and to make sure they have some savings for their family and kids. This is the same issue I know the member is dealing with, and across the nation, many of the members on this side of the House are dealing with this as well. I am eager to see what the members on the opposing side have to say about this, because I know their constituents are feeling the same pain. I thank the member for her advocacy and her work. I wish the members opposing could join us as well.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 38 of 100

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

  See full analysis →