“This bill lowers fuel taxes to give people quick help. The government is also investing in public transit, rebates for electric cars, and moving cargo by rail and ship to cut travel costs. I want the member to agree that we need to keep spending money on these projects.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am continuously surprised that members opposite focus on daily partisan sniping and continuously miss the big picture. In this case, we are talking about excise tax relief, which is immediate affordability relief, but in the big picture, this government is taking very large steps to reduce the cost of transportation, which is what we are talking about mainly when we talk about fuel prices. For example, there are investments in transit and EV rebates. The member is from Oshawa. I represent Hamilton, and the Hamilton-Oshawa Port Authority is making major investments in getting trucks off Highway 401 and onto rail and ships. Shipping traffic is five times more cost-effective than truck. Does the member opposite agree that we should continue to invest in infrastructure beyond today’s issue?”

“The Conservatives claim cutting fuel taxes was their idea, but the Manitoba premier did it years ago. Still, I am glad the Conservatives will vote for this bill. It will help Canadians afford what they need.”

“Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat humorous that the Conservatives try to say that this is their idea. They are jumping up and down, trying to claim that it is their idea. I made reference earlier to Wab Kinew, the Premier of Manitoba, who did it a couple of years ago. I guess he might be happy to say that it was his idea and that the Conservatives stole his idea. The bottom line is that I am grateful the Conservatives have decided to vote in favour of this legislation. It is an affordability measure that would help Canadians. I think we can agree on that much, or at least I would hope so.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 23 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 am glad the member will support this bill to help people with living costs. But Conservatives have usually voted against help like this over the last ten years. He voted against making a school food program permanent. How can he look parents in the eye after voting to let children go hungry at school?”

“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear that my colleague will be voting in favour of the bill, which is an affordability measure designed to help Canadians cope with the cost of living. However, when looking at the voting record of his colleagues in the official opposition over the last 10 years, we see that they have very rarely supported measures aimed at improving affordability. More often than not, they have voted against them. In his speech, he asked whether we are able to look parents in the eye. I would like to put the question back to him, given that we know full well that, as recently as last year, he voted against making the national school food program permanent. This program enables children to get through their school day with a full stomach. How can he look the parents in his constituency in the eye and tell them that he voted against the school food program, which ensures that no child goes hungry during the school day?”

“We need many programs to help Canadians with the cost of living, like child care, school meals, and lower taxes. This fuel bill is only one part of that. I want the member to explain why his party supports this bill, but opposes our other programs to lower costs.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about the importance of concrete measures to help with the cost of living. I completely agree, and I am very pleased that the official opposition is working with us, but this is just one among many measures. To help Canadians, we need a series of affordability measures. The Canada child benefit, affordable child care spaces, the school breakfast program and the tax cut for the middle tax come to mind. It is a combination of measures that sometimes put money directly back in the pockets of Canadians, or that save the public money indirectly. Tonight’s example is just one of many concrete measures. I would therefore like to know why my colleague supports this measure this evening, but does not support all the other affordability measures that we are putting in place. I sense a contradiction there. He asks us to implement concrete measures, but always opposes them.”

“High fuel prices are a real problem for people in rural areas. But the Conservatives ignore the real reasons for these prices. Global conflicts, like the war in Ukraine, are driving up the cost of oil. Will the member admit that these conflicts are the real cause of high fuel prices?”

“Mr. Speaker, my wife is from Corner Brook, so I had an opportunity to spend some time with family in the member opposite’s riding this summer. I also had a chance to go across the strait to Labrador. I can certainly understand that, in the vast rural landscapes of Newfoundland and Labrador, fuel prices are a real concern for her constituents. I am a little frustrated. I have an ongoing frustration that the members opposite, not just this member, continuously focus on what I would say are silly partisan gimmicks and continuously miss the big picture. In particular, we are talking about the cost of oil and gas as a global commodity, and I did not hear the member opposite reference the causes of the current increase in costs to fuel, gasoline and diesel, which are, of course, the U.S. war against Iran and the conflict of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Her colleagues also mentioned Venezuela and other conflicts. Will the member opposite recognize those as the root causes of the cost of fuel in Canada?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 39 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The member says she wants to support small businesses and farms. But she voted against the budget that helped them write off costs, handle tariffs, and innovate. I want her to explain why her votes do not match her words.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague’s speech felt somewhat contradictory to me. She spoke about the importance of supporting our small and medium-sized enterprises, and farms in particular. However, when the 2025 budget was tabled, she voted against it, despite the fact that it included an investment superdeduction that would allow businesses to recover the cost of their investments more quickly. She also voted against various measures to help offset the impact of tariffs and initiatives to support innovation within our small and medium-sized enterprises. How can she stand up in the House this evening and talk about the importance of supporting our small and medium-sized enterprises and helping them cope with various costs, when, time and again, she has voted against the very measures designed to help them? I find it difficult to reconcile her voting record with the position she shared with us this evening in her speech.”

“Fuel costs are hurting families, but biofuel rules help farmers and create jobs, like at a plant in Hamilton. We removed the carbon tax for consumers. I want the member to say exactly how much per litre the industrial carbon tax adds to the price of fuel.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think we all recognize that the cost of fuel is impacting affordability for families across Canada. The member mentioned biofuel standards, but what he did not talk about is how those standards are supporting the farming industry and also the processing industry. In Hamilton, we have a fairly substantial biofuel plant. Those biofuel standards are an important part of providing business opportunity. He also talked about the industrial carbon pricing. Of course, our government removed the consumer carbon tax, but I just wanted to give him the opportunity to explain exactly how much per litre the industrial carbon pricing contributes to the cost of fuel in Canada.”

• Echo ×7

  A repeated line

  “Our government also removed the requirement for provinces and territories to have a consumer-facing carbon price.”

  Said 7 times by 5 members since May 26.

  Every time it was said →

“Our government did not cause high energy costs. Global markets caused them. Under our leadership, Canada has record oil and gas production, new pipelines, and record investment. I want the member opposite to admit what is really happening.”

“Mr. Speaker, honestly, sometimes it is difficult to understand whether members opposite really appreciate the difference between their rhetoric and reality. Let us look at the past 11 years of Liberal government policy. Right now, there is record high oil and gas production in Canada. Our government made the Trans Mountain pipeline happen, and we are looking at an expansion to double that capacity, diversifying Canada’s oil exports to the Pacific. There is LNG phase one and phase two, record exports, record expansions, and investment in the Canadian oil and gas sector. It is fairly detached from reality to suggest that Liberal policies in Canada, of our government, have caused the global increase in energy costs. That is deliberately misrepresenting and perhaps misunderstanding the global pressures on the global commodity market for energy. Would the member opposite like to comment on what is happening in the real world?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  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 all agree Canadians need relief. I want the member to explain why he is stretching out this debate instead of passing the bill quickly.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for delivering his speech with such enthusiasm. We all agree that Canadians need relief. I am curious to know why the hon. member thinks it is a good idea to be extending this debate for such a long period of time when we could be delivering relief more quickly. Maybe he could explain that to Canadians.”

“A Conservative member said tonight that they will support all measures that help Canadians save money. I want to know if my colleague agrees with him. Will the Conservatives support this bill and all our other plans to help with the cost of living?”

“Mr. Speaker, earlier this evening, we received some excellent news from a Conservative colleague. I am going to quote him. I took notes so I would not forget. He mentioned that they would support all measures that help Canadians save money. His colleague announced a complete reversal of the Conservative approach of the past 10 years. I would like to hear from my colleague. Does he share the view of his Conservative colleague that the Conservatives will now support affordability measures? Have they finally realized that Canadians expect help to cope with the cost of living? Will they now support us, not only on this particular measure, but on all the other measures we are implementing to address affordability?”

“My colleague says he wants to help Canadians with the cost of living. If that is true, why did he vote against a permanent school food program?”

“Mr. Speaker, in response to my question earlier, my colleague mentioned that he was in favour of measures to help Canadians deal with the cost of living. I would like to ask him a simple question. If he is in favour of this type of measure, why did he vote against making the school food program permanent?”

“Our government is helping people with the cost of living. The Conservatives have voted against tax cuts, food programs for schools, child benefits, and dental care. I want the member to explain to Canadians why he voted against this help.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking my colleague and congratulating him for being in the greatest opposition party in Canadian history. I will say that I wish him a very long career in that regard: lots of longevity and many years in that position. My question for the member is this: How does he explain to his residents and to all Canadians why the Conservatives voted against introducing the Canadian groceries and essentials benefit, cutting taxes for the middle class, eliminating the goods and services tax, cancelling the federal consumer tax, making the national food school program permanent, introducing automatic federal benefits, expanding the Canada child benefit, the dental plan, the tax-free home savings account and the Canada disability benefit? There are many different affordability measures that our government is implementing, but the member continues to vote against. I wonder if he can explain that to his residents and to all Canadians.”

“Our government is proposing real measures. I want to know what the member proposes to help our businesses stay competitive and to keep prices low for families.”

“Mr. Speaker, I listened to the fine speech my colleague delivered. As for us, we are putting forward specific measures. I would like to know what measures he is proposing to help our businesses remain competitive and to help keep prices affordable for families and consumers across the country.”

“Will the member support this bill to lower gas prices, or will he keep delaying it?”

“Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member be supporting this legislation, which would lower prices at the pump, or will he continue to obstruct and delay it?”

“The member says helping young people get jobs is important. But last year he voted against more money for summer jobs, student work placements, and job skills for youth. If he cares about this, why did he vote against that money?”

“Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my colleague mentioned the importance of helping our young people access the labour market. However, just last year, at budget time, he voted against increasing funding for Canada summer jobs. He voted against investing over $600 million in the student work placement program, which provides over 55,000 learning opportunities for young people across the country, and he voted against the $300 million we invested in the youth employment and skills strategy. If this is so important to him, why did he vote against these investments, which address several of the concerns he mentioned in his speech?”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 8 of 100

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

  See full analysis →