Bill C-38, Canadian Fuel Affordability Act · Report stage · now law Where it stands
The law extends the temporary suspension of the federal fuel excise tax until January 31, 2027. Between February 1, 2027, and March 31, 2027, excise tax rates on fuels are set at 50% of their regular rates.
96 statements
“I am asking everyone in the House to agree to split our party's speaking time.”
“Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like to seek unanimous consent to split the time in the first Conservative slot.”
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like to seek unanimous consent to split the time in the first Conservative slot.
“Gas, groceries, and the cost of living are too high. The Bloc Québécois wants to bring back fuel taxes, but I want the government to make the fuel tax cut permanent.”
“Mr. Speaker, something just happened that really highlights the difference between the Bloc Québécois and the Conservative Party. The Bloc Québécois is asking questions as though it wants Quebeckers and Canadians to pay more taxes. It is asking the government to bring taxes back. While we are in the midst of an affordability crisis with regard to gas, groceries and the rising cost of living, the Bloc Québécois wants the government to raise taxes. What I am asking the government to do, to help Quebeckers and Canadians cope with the cost of living and to bring down the cost of living, is to make the tax cut permanent.”
Question or comment in debate
Relevance 0 of 100
None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.
See full analysisQuestion or comment in debate
Signal 29 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 analysisMr. Speaker, something just happened that really highlights the difference between the Bloc Québécois and the Conservative Party. The Bloc Québécois is asking questions as though it wants Quebeckers and Canadians to pay more taxes. It is asking the government to bring taxes back. While we are in the midst of an affordability crisis with regard to gas, groceries and the rising cost of living, the Bloc Québécois wants the government to raise taxes. What I am asking the government to do, to help Quebeckers and Canadians cope with the cost of living and to bring down the cost of living, is to make the tax cut permanent.
“The Bloc Québécois is asking the government to raise taxes on Canadians again. The debate today shows the clear difference between our parties. Even the Liberal member looks uncomfortable with these questions because he also wants Canadians to have a good life.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are currently witnessing a historic moment. The Bloc Québécois is once again speaking out to demand that the Liberal government impose even more taxes on Quebeckers and Canadians. I would encourage people to listen to what was said in the past 10 minutes. We really see the difference between the Bloc Québécois, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party. I understand why my hon. colleague, for whom I have a great deal of respect, is uncomfortable with these questions, because he, too, wants to make sure that Canadians have a good quality of life.”
A repeated line
“For whom I have a great deal of respect.”
Said 5 times by 4 members since May 25.
Every time it was saidMr. Speaker, we are currently witnessing a historic moment. The Bloc Québécois is once again speaking out to demand that the Liberal government impose even more taxes on Quebeckers and Canadians. I would encourage people to listen to what was said in the past 10 minutes. We really see the difference between the Bloc Québécois, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party. I understand why my hon. colleague, for whom I have a great deal of respect, is uncomfortable with these questions, because he, too, wants to make sure that Canadians have a good quality of life.
“I support cutting fuel taxes, but this bill does not go far enough. High diesel prices raise costs for farmers and drive up grocery bills. The government should remove all federal taxes on gas and diesel until July 2027, end the carbon tax on industry, and help build more refineries.”
“Mr. Speaker, today I am going to talk about a subject that directly concerns the wallets of Canadians, Quebeckers and, obviously, the people of Beauce. I am going to talk about diesel prices, which have an impact on our families, on inflation, on the cost of groceries and on our constituents’ abilities to make ends meet. To begin, I would like to talk about my magnificent region, Beauce. Beauce is a region of entrepreneurs, builders, manufacturers and, of course, farmers. Beauce is the entrepreneurial capital of Canada. It is home to proud, and even very proud, people who work hard. The people of Beauce are job creators and wealth creators. In my riding, entrepreneurs do not wait for the government to move forward. They wait for neither government money nor, above all, subsidies. In Beauce, we work together, support one another and stand united. The people of Beauce are asking the government to stop putting obstacles in their way through the layers of red tape created by the Liberals over the past 11 years. Today, one of those obstacles is the cost of fuel. Diesel is a tool of the trade in Beauce. It powers tractors, farm equipment and delivery trucks, and it is an important part of the regional economy. When the cost of diesel goes up, it is not just another bill; the effects ripple through the economy and drives inflation. When I meet with farmers from Beauce, whether in Saint‑Isidore, Saint‑Éphrem‑de‑Beauce, Saint‑Victor, Saint‑Gédéon‑de‑Beauce or elsewhere in my riding, they all tell me the same thing: Their production and operating costs are skyrocketing. Over the past year, they have had to cope with periods when the price of diesel nearly doubled. Imagine a farmer who suddenly has to pay almost twice as much to run his machinery. He cannot simply decide not to cultivate his fields. He cannot stop feeding his livestock. He cannot stop producing the food that Canadians need. He has to keep going as well as keep paying his bills. According to estimates by the UPA, the Union des producteurs agricoles, the rise in diesel prices could cost Quebeckers as much as an additional $200 million. That is $200 million in Quebec alone. The worst part is that this money is not being invested in farms. It is not being used to buy new equipment or create jobs. This $200 million will directly drive inflation. The cost always ends up being passed along the supply chain. The cost of diesel does not stop at the farm gate. It follows the produce. It follows the truck. It follows the distribution network. Ultimately, it is passed on in the price paid by consumers. The producer is the first to absorb the increase. That is always how it goes. However, it is always Canadian families who foot the bill in the end. That is why I am pleased to see that the government has finally decided to defer the excise tax on gasoline. However, let us be clear that this did not happen by chance. It happened because Conservatives spent months pressuring the government to do it. We asked the government to stop adding to Canadians’ tax burden. We asked the government to recognize that families had had enough. Now the Liberals are finally being forced to acknowledge that reducing fuel taxes, which was not possible a few months ago, can help bring down the cost of living. They found a calculator and realized that it could lower prices. That is good news, but it is not enough. A cost-of-living crisis cannot be resolved with temporary half measures. Our Conservative proposal is clear: eliminate all federal taxes on gas and diesel until July 1, 2027. This includes the excise tax, the GST on fuel and regulatory costs that contribute to higher prices. We are also calling for the permanent elimination of industrial carbon pricing. We need to grant emergency permits and tax relief for refinery construction so we can boost diesel production to one million barrels per day and thereby increase supply to meet demand. We estimate that these measures could save each family nearly $1,000 a year. I want to emphasize something. I am talking about both diesel and gasoline. Cutting the cost of gasoline helps families get around, spend time with their families and travel, but lowering the cost of diesel also helps reduce the cost of producing and distributing almost everything we consume. I would now like to talk about something that is particularly close to my heart: the impact of diesel on food inflation. For several years now, Canadians have been seeing higher grocery bills. They have to make choices they should never have needed to make. Seniors are having to choose between certain food products and other essentials. Meanwhile, we continue to hear all sorts of explanations for this increase. There is talk about producers, processors, wholesalers, distributors and retailers, but who can really explain to Canadians where these increases are in the food supply chain and, most importantly, who is benefiting? Those are the questions we have to ask ourselves. I am particularly proud to make an announcement today in the House. At the request of my colleague, the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, I have agreed to serve on a special committee focused on the supply chain and food inflation. Why is that important to me? It is simple. It is because I know the industry. I spent 30 years of my life working in the grocery sector and across the entire supply chain. I am familiar with these realities and these challenges and, more importantly, I have worked at every stage of the supply chain. I grew up in a farming family, worked on the supplier side for 15 years, worked in distribution and worked with wholesalers. Now, I also understand the reality of the final link in the chain, that is, the point of sale. At every stage, there are costs involved. At every stage, business decisions have to be made. At every stage, prices might have to go up. Where are the costs really going up? What increases are justified? Which companies are absorbing higher costs and which ones are passing them on to consumers? I truly believe in transparency, and when millions of Canadians are struggling to pay for groceries, they deserve answers. That is what we want. I can assure the House that we will leave no stone unturned. I intend to put my 30 years of experience to work for the public in this effort. There is one thing that I think is especially important in the debate on diesel. The government is talking about inflation as though it were an abstract phenomenon, as though prices just magically appear on items on store shelves. However, behind every price is an economic reality. There is a farmer who has to pay for diesel, a business that has to pay for power, a trucker that transports goods, a retailer who has to pay their employees, pay their electricity bill, buy equipment and fund their operations. That is why the cost of fuel is so important. Diesel is like the blood flowing through the veins of our economy. We do not have to like it. People may not like it, but that is a fact of life. That is how it is. When the price of diesel goes up, the strain is felt everywhere: on our farms, in our factories, on our roads, in our businesses and at the grocery store checkout. That is why the government needs to stop treating taxes on fuel as simply a tax issue. This is a matter of competitiveness, food security, purchasing power and respect for those who feed our country. We welcome the Liberal government’s backtracking on rising gas prices, but we are not going to stop there. We will continue to fight to eliminate federal taxes on gas and diesel. We will continue to stand up for our farmers. We will continue to stand up for our manufacturers.”
A repeated line
“When the cost of diesel goes up?”
Said 4 times by 4 members since October 6.
Every time it was saidMr. Speaker, today I am going to talk about a subject that directly concerns the wallets of Canadians, Quebeckers and, obviously, the people of Beauce. I am going to talk about diesel prices, which have an impact on our families, on inflation, on the cost of groceries and on our constituents’ abilities to make ends meet. To begin, I would like to talk about my magnificent region, Beauce. Beauce is a region of entrepreneurs, builders, manufacturers and, of course, farmers. Beauce is the entrepreneurial capital of Canada. It is home to proud, and even very proud, people who work hard. The people of Beauce are job creators and wealth creators. In my riding, entrepreneurs do not wait for the government to move forward. They wait for neither government money nor, above all, subsidies. In Beauce, we work together, support one another and stand united. The people of Beauce are asking the government to stop putting obstacles in their way through the layers of red tape created by the Liberals over the past 11 years. Today, one of those obstacles is the cost of fuel. Diesel is a tool of the trade in Beauce. It powers tractors, farm equipment and delivery trucks, and it is an important part of the regional economy. When the cost of diesel goes up, it is not just another bill; the effects ripple through the economy and drives inflation. When I meet with farmers from Beauce, whether in Saint‑Isidore, Saint‑Éphrem‑de‑Beauce, Saint‑Victor, Saint‑Gédéon‑de‑Beauce or elsewhere in my riding, they all tell me the same thing: Their production and operating costs are skyrocketing. Over the past year, they have had to cope with periods when the price of diesel nearly doubled. Imagine a farmer who suddenly has to pay almost twice as much to run his machinery. He cannot simply decide not to cultivate his fields. He cannot stop feeding his livestock. He cannot stop producing the food that Canadians need. He has to keep going as well as keep paying his bills. According to estimates by the UPA, the Union des producteurs agricoles, the rise in diesel prices could cost Quebeckers as much as an additional $200 million. That is $200 million in Quebec alone. The worst part is that this money is not being invested in farms. It is not being used to buy new equipment or create jobs. This $200 million will directly drive inflation. The cost always ends up being passed along the supply chain. The cost of diesel does not stop at the farm gate. It follows the produce. It follows the truck. It follows the distribution network. Ultimately, it is passed on in the price paid by consumers. The producer is the first to absorb the increase. That is always how it goes. However, it is always Canadian families who foot the bill in the end. That is why I am pleased to see that the government has finally decided to defer the excise tax on gasoline. However, let us be clear that this did not happen by chance. It happened because Conservatives spent months pressuring the government to do it. We asked the government to stop adding to Canadians’ tax burden. We asked the government to recognize that families had had enough. Now the Liberals are finally being forced to acknowledge that reducing fuel taxes, which was not possible a few months ago, can help bring down the cost of living. They found a calculator and realized that it could lower prices. That is good news, but it is not enough. A cost-of-living crisis cannot be resolved with temporary half measures. Our Conservative proposal is clear: eliminate all federal taxes on gas and diesel until July 1, 2027. This includes the excise tax, the GST on fuel and regulatory costs that contribute to higher prices. We are also calling for the permanent elimination of industrial carbon pricing. We need to grant emergency permits and tax relief for refinery construction so we can boost diesel production to one million barrels per day and thereby increase supply to meet demand. We estimate that these measures could save each family nearly $1,000 a year. I want to emphasize something. I am talking about both diesel and gasoline. Cutting the cost of gasoline helps families get around, spend time with their families and travel, but lowering the cost of diesel also helps reduce the cost of producing and distributing almost everything we consume. I would now like to talk about something that is particularly close to my heart: the impact of diesel on food inflation. For several years now, Canadians have been seeing higher grocery bills. They have to make choices they should never have needed to make. Seniors are having to choose between certain food products and other essentials. Meanwhile, we continue to hear all sorts of explanations for this increase. There is talk about producers, processors, wholesalers, distributors and retailers, but who can really explain to Canadians where these increases are in the food supply chain and, most importantly, who is benefiting? Those are the questions we have to ask ourselves. I am particularly proud to make an announcement today in the House. At the request of my colleague, the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, I have agreed to serve on a special committee focused on the supply chain and food inflation. Why is that important to me? It is simple. It is because I know the industry. I spent 30 years of my life working in the grocery sector and across the entire supply chain. I am familiar with these realities and these challenges and, more importantly, I have worked at every stage of the supply chain. I grew up in a farming family, worked on the supplier side for 15 years, worked in distribution and worked with wholesalers. Now, I also understand the reality of the final link in the chain, that is, the point of sale. At every stage, there are costs involved. At every stage, business decisions have to be made. At every stage, prices might have to go up. Where are the costs really going up? What increases are justified? Which companies are absorbing higher costs and which ones are passing them on to consumers? I truly believe in transparency, and when millions of Canadians are struggling to pay for groceries, they deserve answers. That is what we want. I can assure the House that we will leave no stone unturned. I intend to put my 30 years of experience to work for the public in this effort. There is one thing that I think is especially important in the debate on diesel. The government is talking about inflation as though it were an abstract phenomenon, as though prices just magically appear on items on store shelves. However, behind every price is an economic reality. There is a farmer who has to pay for diesel, a business that has to pay for power, a trucker that transports goods, a retailer who has to pay their employees, pay their electricity bill, buy equipment and fund their operations. That is why the cost of fuel is so important. Diesel is like the blood flowing through the veins of our economy. We do not have to like it. People may not like it, but that is a fact of life. That is how it is. When the price of diesel goes up, the strain is felt everywhere: on our farms, in our factories, on our roads, in our businesses and at the grocery store checkout. That is why the government needs to stop treating taxes on fuel as simply a tax issue. This is a matter of competitiveness, food security, purchasing power and respect for those who feed our country. We welcome the Liberal government’s backtracking on rising gas prices, but we are not going to stop there. We will continue to fight to eliminate federal taxes on gas and diesel. We will continue to stand up for our farmers. We will continue to stand up for our manufacturers.
“This bill is not enough. Fuel prices keep rising each month while people struggle to afford living. We sell our oil to the United States and pay 24 cents more per litre than they do. We should invest in our own refineries to permanently lower diesel prices.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi, whom I hold in high regard, for his excellent question. Why am I saying that this is not enough? I do not know whether the Liberals have any data suggesting that diesel prices will fall in the coming weeks, but for the time being, prices are increasing month after month. I do not know whether they are aware that there is currently a cost of living crisis. People are struggling to make ends meet. I do not know whether the government realizes that we sell our oil to the United States while paying 24¢ more per litre than they do. We have the resources; we have everything we need. Why are we not investing in refineries to ensure a long-term, permanent reduction in the price of diesel?”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 45 of 100
None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.
See full analysisA repeated line
“People are struggling to make ends meet.”
Said 13 times by 10 members since April 27.
Every time it was saidMr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi, whom I hold in high regard, for his excellent question. Why am I saying that this is not enough? I do not know whether the Liberals have any data suggesting that diesel prices will fall in the coming weeks, but for the time being, prices are increasing month after month. I do not know whether they are aware that there is currently a cost of living crisis. People are struggling to make ends meet. I do not know whether the government realizes that we sell our oil to the United States while paying 24¢ more per litre than they do. We have the resources; we have everything we need. Why are we not investing in refineries to ensure a long-term, permanent reduction in the price of diesel?
“Higher fuel prices make everything else more expensive. Fuel costs have gone up 80 percent in recent years, and inflation started long before we paused the fuel tax. I invite the member to committee so I can explain how these supply chain costs work.”
“Mr. Speaker, he is right that I was not here in 2023; I was not around. That is a good point. In fact, it is one of the only good points he made on the subject. Earlier, I talked about inflation. I would like to point out that inflation did not start when the excise tax suspension was extended. It has been around for years, since 2019. As far as I know, the tax was in effect then. What we are trying to figure out is whether fuel prices directly affect inflation. Obviously, fuel prices have gone up by 80% over the past few years. That definitely comes at a cost. It makes sense. It is simple math. I would invite my colleague to the committee so I can explain the supply chain and everything involved in that. I would be happy to explain all of that to him.”
Mr. Speaker, he is right that I was not here in 2023; I was not around. That is a good point. In fact, it is one of the only good points he made on the subject. Earlier, I talked about inflation. I would like to point out that inflation did not start when the excise tax suspension was extended. It has been around for years, since 2019. As far as I know, the tax was in effect then. What we are trying to figure out is whether fuel prices directly affect inflation. Obviously, fuel prices have gone up by 80% over the past few years. That definitely comes at a cost. It makes sense. It is simple math. I would invite my colleague to the committee so I can explain the supply chain and everything involved in that. I would be happy to explain all of that to him.
“The member voted against our earlier motion to make life more affordable, so I do not understand his question. The government is only pausing fuel taxes. We should get rid of them completely to help people in my riding and across Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am a bit surprised by his question. We moved a motion earlier because we wanted to talk about affordability. He voted against that motion, so I am having a hard time understanding his question. Again, the Liberals have set an end date for the taxes. Why not eliminate them altogether? That would give Canadians and Quebeckers, including the people of Beauce, a bit of breathing room.”
Mr. Speaker, I am a bit surprised by his question. We moved a motion earlier because we wanted to talk about affordability. He voted against that motion, so I am having a hard time understanding his question. Again, the Liberals have set an end date for the taxes. Why not eliminate them altogether? That would give Canadians and Quebeckers, including the people of Beauce, a bit of breathing room.
“Life costs too much right now, and fuel taxes make groceries and everything else more expensive. I support pausing the fuel tax, but the government's plan does not go far enough. I want the government to pause all federal gas and diesel taxes until at least July 1, 2027, and then eliminate them for good.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Beauce for the excellent speech he just gave and join in congratulating him on his appointment to the committee. I rise today to speak to Bill C-38 at a time when our country is experiencing an affordability crisis that is hitting every Canadian family hard. Across the country, especially in the regions of Quebec, people are forced to cope with an increasingly difficult reality as the cost of living rises, bills pile up and families’ purchasing power is stretched to the limit. As everyone knows, buying groceries is more expensive. Getting to work is more expensive. Transporting goods is more expensive. For our farmers, producing the food that we put on our tables is an escalating financial challenge. It is in this context that we must examine the measures proposed in Bill C‑38 and ask ourselves a fundamental question: Will these measures provide Canadians with sufficient, lasting relief? That is the question. The Liberal government has finally decided to extend the suspension of the federal excise tax on fuel and postpone its reinstatement until early next year, in 2027. This relief is, of course, welcome news for car owners, workers and businesses. However, one fact should be kept in mind: This decision comes after months of pressure from Conservatives calling on the government to reduce the tax burden on gasoline and diesel. For months, we urged the Liberals to give Canadians some relief. We repeatedly called for the suspension of this tax to be extended at least until Canada Day, July 1, 2027. However, time and again, the Liberals voted against our proposal. Today, the Minister of Finance announced that the government will extend a measure that it had said itself would be temporary. I find it interesting to hear the Bloc Québécois pleading with the Liberal government to reinstate the gas tax today. The Bloc is asking when the government will reinstate the gas tax. I do not know whether the Bloc Québécois members are living in the same province as I am. This weekend, Quebeckers were telling me that they are struggling to make ends meet, that things are not working and that they need some breathing room. One way to give them that breathing room is to eliminate this gas tax. However, the Bloc Québécois is currently pleading with the government to keep it in place. We are saying that Canadians need more relief. They need practical measures that will help them regain real purchasing power. It is important to understand that gas and diesel prices do not just affect car owners. When we talk about fuel prices, we are also talking about food prices, the cost of materials, transportation costs and, ultimately, the cost of almost every product that Canadians need and buy on a daily basis. Fuel is present in almost every stage of our economy. Let us take a simple example: a can of vegetables at the grocery store. Before it reaches the shelves, the vegetables will be grown, harvested, packaged, transported and distributed. The farmers use tractors, combine harvesters and many other machines that run on diesel. The transporters then use trucks to move crops to distribution centres and businesses. Each of these stages involves energy costs. When the price of diesel increases, the cost of production and transportation increases. That pressure ultimately affects the price that consumers pay. In other words, Canadians are not just paying the high fuel prices at the pump; they are also suffering the consequences at the grocery store checkout. This happens every week. Families have to watch every dollar of their budget. What are they going to do? I would like to draw the House’s attention to the realities facing Quebec farmers. A few weeks ago, I spoke here about Nick Majeau, a farmer from Quebec. His story is a perfect example of the challenges that agricultural producers face. During harvest season, he has to spend $2,000 a day on diesel to power his farm equipment. That is twice as much as it cost him the previous year. Imagine what that means for this farming business. I spoke with other farmers in the Centre-du-Québec region of my riding. They told me that for some farmers, the costs are much higher than in Mr. Majeau’s case. For some, the costs are three times what they used to be. This money is not being spent to expand the business, hire more workers, or invest in equipment. It has to be spent just to continue production. As my hon. colleague, the member for Beauce, said earlier, farmers cannot opt out of farming next week just because the price of diesel has gone up. They cannot say they are going to take a week off until the price goes back down. That is not how it works. They have to go out to the fields and cannot just decide to leave their tractors in the garage. Unlike other businesses, they cannot always pass on all of these costs to their customers right away. They have to absorb the increase and cover the expenses to stay competitive. These men and women work tirelessly to feed our communities and contribute to the economic strength of our regions, our food sovereignty and Quebec’s prosperity. I am talking about our farmers. I see that my Bloc Québécois colleague does not like hearing me talk about this, but when I hear the Bloc Québécois calling for the tax to be reinstated as quickly as possible, my thoughts turn to our rural communities and the farmers who fight every morning to make a living. Morning, noon and night, agriculture is on our plates. Without these men and women who get up every morning to work their fields, we would not enjoy the harvests that feed us day in and day out. Now they are getting some breathing room. We are calling on the government to make that relief permanent. When I hear the Bloc Québécois calling for the excise tax be reinstated, it leaves me shaking my head. There are also parents who must choose between filling up their gas tank and buying groceries. I am not exaggerating. They have a limited amount of money and have to decide whether to fill up the tank or put in just 20 dollars’ worth so they can still afford groceries. That is the reality for many right now. There are seniors living on fixed incomes who are seeing the cost of essentials continue to rise. The government now recognizes that cutting fuel taxes can help ease costs in several sectors of the economy. In its announcement, it acknowledged the benefits of tax relief for truckers, farmers and people working in the construction, housing and delivery sectors. That alone is an important acknowledgement, but it also raises an important question: If the government now recognizes that cutting the fuel tax helps Canadians, why not extend it even further? Why end this measure so soon when families continue to struggle with the rising cost of living? Why not offer farmers more predictability? Farmers run businesses. They are businessmen and businesswomen. What businesses need most is predictability, which the government is not giving them at this point. That is why we, the Conservatives, are asking the government to do more. We are calling on the government to suspend all federal taxes on gasoline and diesel at least until July 1, 2027. I look forward to answering my colleagues’ questions because this issue really matters to me. Ordinary people are going through tough times. Folks are struggling, and this is one way to give them a bit of breathing room. I am convinced that permanently eliminating the gas tax would give Canadian families a chance.”
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Beauce for the excellent speech he just gave and join in congratulating him on his appointment to the committee. I rise today to speak to Bill C-38 at a time when our country is experiencing an affordability crisis that is hitting every Canadian family hard. Across the country, especially in the regions of Quebec, people are forced to cope with an increasingly difficult reality as the cost of living rises, bills pile up and families’ purchasing power is stretched to the limit. As everyone knows, buying groceries is more expensive. Getting to work is more expensive. Transporting goods is more expensive. For our farmers, producing the food that we put on our tables is an escalating financial challenge. It is in this context that we must examine the measures proposed in Bill C‑38 and ask ourselves a fundamental question: Will these measures provide Canadians with sufficient, lasting relief? That is the question. The Liberal government has finally decided to extend the suspension of the federal excise tax on fuel and postpone its reinstatement until early next year, in 2027. This relief is, of course, welcome news for car owners, workers and businesses. However, one fact should be kept in mind: This decision comes after months of pressure from Conservatives calling on the government to reduce the tax burden on gasoline and diesel. For months, we urged the Liberals to give Canadians some relief. We repeatedly called for the suspension of this tax to be extended at least until Canada Day, July 1, 2027. However, time and again, the Liberals voted against our proposal. Today, the Minister of Finance announced that the government will extend a measure that it had said itself would be temporary. I find it interesting to hear the Bloc Québécois pleading with the Liberal government to reinstate the gas tax today. The Bloc is asking when the government will reinstate the gas tax. I do not know whether the Bloc Québécois members are living in the same province as I am. This weekend, Quebeckers were telling me that they are struggling to make ends meet, that things are not working and that they need some breathing room. One way to give them that breathing room is to eliminate this gas tax. However, the Bloc Québécois is currently pleading with the government to keep it in place. We are saying that Canadians need more relief. They need practical measures that will help them regain real purchasing power. It is important to understand that gas and diesel prices do not just affect car owners. When we talk about fuel prices, we are also talking about food prices, the cost of materials, transportation costs and, ultimately, the cost of almost every product that Canadians need and buy on a daily basis. Fuel is present in almost every stage of our economy. Let us take a simple example: a can of vegetables at the grocery store. Before it reaches the shelves, the vegetables will be grown, harvested, packaged, transported and distributed. The farmers use tractors, combine harvesters and many other machines that run on diesel. The transporters then use trucks to move crops to distribution centres and businesses. Each of these stages involves energy costs. When the price of diesel increases, the cost of production and transportation increases. That pressure ultimately affects the price that consumers pay. In other words, Canadians are not just paying the high fuel prices at the pump; they are also suffering the consequences at the grocery store checkout. This happens every week. Families have to watch every dollar of their budget. What are they going to do? I would like to draw the House’s attention to the realities facing Quebec farmers. A few weeks ago, I spoke here about Nick Majeau, a farmer from Quebec. His story is a perfect example of the challenges that agricultural producers face. During harvest season, he has to spend $2,000 a day on diesel to power his farm equipment. That is twice as much as it cost him the previous year. Imagine what that means for this farming business. I spoke with other farmers in the Centre-du-Québec region of my riding. They told me that for some farmers, the costs are much higher than in Mr. Majeau’s case. For some, the costs are three times what they used to be. This money is not being spent to expand the business, hire more workers, or invest in equipment. It has to be spent just to continue production. As my hon. colleague, the member for Beauce, said earlier, farmers cannot opt out of farming next week just because the price of diesel has gone up. They cannot say they are going to take a week off until the price goes back down. That is not how it works. They have to go out to the fields and cannot just decide to leave their tractors in the garage. Unlike other businesses, they cannot always pass on all of these costs to their customers right away. They have to absorb the increase and cover the expenses to stay competitive. These men and women work tirelessly to feed our communities and contribute to the economic strength of our regions, our food sovereignty and Quebec’s prosperity. I am talking about our farmers. I see that my Bloc Québécois colleague does not like hearing me talk about this, but when I hear the Bloc Québécois calling for the tax to be reinstated as quickly as possible, my thoughts turn to our rural communities and the farmers who fight every morning to make a living. Morning, noon and night, agriculture is on our plates. Without these men and women who get up every morning to work their fields, we would not enjoy the harvests that feed us day in and day out. Now they are getting some breathing room. We are calling on the government to make that relief permanent. When I hear the Bloc Québécois calling for the excise tax be reinstated, it leaves me shaking my head. There are also parents who must choose between filling up their gas tank and buying groceries. I am not exaggerating. They have a limited amount of money and have to decide whether to fill up the tank or put in just 20 dollars’ worth so they can still afford groceries. That is the reality for many right now. There are seniors living on fixed incomes who are seeing the cost of essentials continue to rise. The government now recognizes that cutting fuel taxes can help ease costs in several sectors of the economy. In its announcement, it acknowledged the benefits of tax relief for truckers, farmers and people working in the construction, housing and delivery sectors. That alone is an important acknowledgement, but it also raises an important question: If the government now recognizes that cutting the fuel tax helps Canadians, why not extend it even further? Why end this measure so soon when families continue to struggle with the rising cost of living? Why not offer farmers more predictability? Farmers run businesses. They are businessmen and businesswomen. What businesses need most is predictability, which the government is not giving them at this point. That is why we, the Conservatives, are asking the government to do more. We are calling on the government to suspend all federal taxes on gasoline and diesel at least until July 1, 2027. I look forward to answering my colleagues’ questions because this issue really matters to me. Ordinary people are going through tough times. Folks are struggling, and this is one way to give them a bit of breathing room. I am convinced that permanently eliminating the gas tax would give Canadian families a chance.
“We all want to leave a better country for our children and grandchildren. We should permanently get rid of this fuel tax instead of pausing it. That gives people certainty. The government can make up the lost money by shrinking its own size.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member for Brome—Missisquoi is a colleague for whom I have great respect. He is fortunate to still have his father around and to be a grandparent. As for me, I will become a grandfather in two weeks. I will get the greatest gift that life can give me in a couple of weeks. We all think about our children and grandchildren. I am certain that all members here, on both sides of the House, are thinking about their children and grandchildren. Our shared goal is to leave a better country for future generations. I am sure that we all share that vision. Where do our visions differ? I spoke earlier about predictability. What we on the Conservative side are saying is that we need to give our constituents some predictability by permanently eliminating this tax. There are many ways to make up the revenue, such as by reducing the size of government.”
Reply to a debate question
Signal 33 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 analysisMr. Speaker, the member for Brome—Missisquoi is a colleague for whom I have great respect. He is fortunate to still have his father around and to be a grandparent. As for me, I will become a grandfather in two weeks. I will get the greatest gift that life can give me in a couple of weeks. We all think about our children and grandchildren. I am certain that all members here, on both sides of the House, are thinking about their children and grandchildren. Our shared goal is to leave a better country for future generations. I am sure that we all share that vision. Where do our visions differ? I spoke earlier about predictability. What we on the Conservative side are saying is that we need to give our constituents some predictability by permanently eliminating this tax. There are many ways to make up the revenue, such as by reducing the size of government.
“Farmers are paying twice as much for fuel this year as they did last year. They do not make enough money to cover that cost. We need to pass this bill to lower fuel taxes.”
“Mr. Speaker, I must also admit that I hold my colleague from Mirabel in very high regard. What is more, he is looking out for me today. He told me not to eat my whole dessert and to watch my sugar intake. We look out for one another here, and these are moments that people back home do not get to see. In response to my colleague, I would say this: For the farmer who was paying $1,000 last year and is paying $2,000 this year, what matters is not where the five cents from the tax is going. What matters to that farmer is that this is costing him twice as much out of his own pocket and he does not have enough income to keep going. That is what worries him.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 47 of 100
None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.
See full analysisReply 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 analysisMr. Speaker, I must also admit that I hold my colleague from Mirabel in very high regard. What is more, he is looking out for me today. He told me not to eat my whole dessert and to watch my sugar intake. We look out for one another here, and these are moments that people back home do not get to see. In response to my colleague, I would say this: For the farmer who was paying $1,000 last year and is paying $2,000 this year, what matters is not where the five cents from the tax is going. What matters to that farmer is that this is costing him twice as much out of his own pocket and he does not have enough income to keep going. That is what worries him.
“Canada has an affordability crisis. What does my colleague think about the Bloc Québécois wanting to bring back the tax on gas?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska—des-Sources on his excellent speech. We are experiencing an affordability crisis, and we had a vote today. I would like to ask him the following question: How does my colleague view the fact that the Bloc Québécois wants to reintroduce the excise tax on gasoline?”
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska—des-Sources on his excellent speech. We are experiencing an affordability crisis, and we had a vote today. I would like to ask him the following question: How does my colleague view the fact that the Bloc Québécois wants to reintroduce the excise tax on gasoline?
“I want the government to permanently remove the tax on gasoline. People are struggling to afford life right now. I am surprised the Bloc Québécois wants to bring this tax back.”
“Mr. Speaker, I feel a little awkward because it is true that I have talked a lot about the Bloc Québécois this evening. We are really here to talk about Bill C-38, concerning the excise tax on gasoline. I must admit, however, that I was a bit taken aback to hear the Bloc Québécois say today that it is asking the government to reinstate the excise tax on gasoline even though Canadians and Quebeckers keep talking to us about the affordability crisis every single weekend. Yes, on this side of the House, we are asking that this tax be permanently removed. I see that as one way to ease the affordability crisis this country is going through.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 100 of 100
Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, I feel a little awkward because it is true that I have talked a lot about the Bloc Québécois this evening. We are really here to talk about Bill C-38, concerning the excise tax on gasoline. I must admit, however, that I was a bit taken aback to hear the Bloc Québécois say today that it is asking the government to reinstate the excise tax on gasoline even though Canadians and Quebeckers keep talking to us about the affordability crisis every single weekend. Yes, on this side of the House, we are asking that this tax be permanently removed. I see that as one way to ease the affordability crisis this country is going through.
“Our goal is to put money back in Canadians' pockets. To cut more taxes, the government needs to manage its spending better. Spending 200 million dollars on Maritime Launch Services does not help Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague, a person I hold in high regard, has just asked an excellent question. The Conservatives’ goal is to put money back in Canadians’ pockets. If we end up being able to eliminate other taxes, we will have to do better at managing what is going on now. Maritime Launch Services comes to my mind, along with the $200-million investment heading its way. That is not the way to put money back in Canadians’ pockets.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 36 of 100
None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, my colleague, a person I hold in high regard, has just asked an excellent question. The Conservatives’ goal is to put money back in Canadians’ pockets. If we end up being able to eliminate other taxes, we will have to do better at managing what is going on now. Maritime Launch Services comes to my mind, along with the $200-million investment heading its way. That is not the way to put money back in Canadians’ pockets.
“Fuel taxes are added on top of the base price of oil. Because of that, cutting the fuel tax directly saves money for consumers.”
“Mr. Speaker, my impression is that we do not share a common understanding of the situation. If I understand correctly, the question is whether tax rebates go directly to consumers. My understanding of the oil market is that the base price is determined by New York Harbor and by global market forces. Then taxes are added. For each distribution centre, there is a base nominal price on oil that is set every day. Various applicable taxes are then added, followed by the GST. In my opinion, yes, the savings go directly to consumers.”
Question or comment in debate
Relevance 46 of 100
None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, my impression is that we do not share a common understanding of the situation. If I understand correctly, the question is whether tax rebates go directly to consumers. My understanding of the oil market is that the base price is determined by New York Harbor and by global market forces. Then taxes are added. For each distribution centre, there is a base nominal price on oil that is set every day. Various applicable taxes are then added, followed by the GST. In my opinion, yes, the savings go directly to consumers.
“I support this bill because any tax cut helps, but it does not go far enough. It only takes 10 cents off gas for a short time. Canada is in an affordability crisis. We should remove all federal fuel taxes until at least Canada Day in 2027 to give families real relief.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt. I want to bring members back to a couple of hours ago when the House voted on a motion. We had a very simple vote on a very simple motion earlier today. I will read the text for everybody watching at home just so they see how simple it was. It reads: That the House officially recognize that: (a) the Liberals have been in power for 11 years; and (b) Canada is in an affordability crisis. The entire motion is one sentence, and nothing in it is untrue. The Liberals have been in power for 11 years, and we do not need a calendar to confirm that. On the second part, members can ask anybody across the country who is trying to save up to buy a place of their own, put food on the table consistently or even pay their bills, and they will tell them that the answer to that question is yes, Canada is in an affordability crisis. However, earlier today, every single Liberal MP on that side of the House stood up to oppose that motion, and in doing so, they denied reality. They denied the reality of millions of Canadians. They denied their own record in the same way they have been running from it since the Prime Minister got here. They pretend that the same MPs, the same cabinet ministers and the same advisers who served under Justin Trudeau, many of whom are now promoted, are somehow not responsible for everything that happened over the last 11 years. What is worse is that they deny the financial reality that millions of Canadians are living right now, just outside of this place. I invite them to visit a food bank in Toronto and defend that vote. Some have foolishly taken a picture in front of that food bank, but they should actually go in and see the rising numbers. Last year, Toronto food banks recorded 4.1 million visits, which is the highest number recorded, and a 340% increase since 2019. The line did not just double. It more than quadrupled. Maybe the Liberals could explain their vote to the 46% of Canadians who say that they are less than $200 away from not being able to pay their bills every single month. Maybe they could explain it to the nearly three in 10 who say they already do not earn enough to cover their bills and their debt together. That is who they voted against today when they voted to deny reality and deny the financial reality of so many of those people. That same denial runs through the legislation that we are debating again today. The government frames Bill C-38 as a major affordability measure. In reality, as we have heard many times, it would extend a temporary pause on one federal tax at the pump, which is a 10¢-a-litre excise tax. By the finance minister’s own math, that is about five dollars off of a 50-litre fill-up. It is something, that is for sure, but it is not enough. It is not enough for the affordability crisis that we are facing, and it comes with an expiry date, as if that affordability crisis, which was created over the last 11 years, would just automatically disappear. On February 1, half of that tax comes back and the relief drops to 5¢ a litre. On April 1, the rest comes off and the relief drops to zero. Every other federal charge built into the price of fuel stays in place, which means the GST stays in place, the clean fuel standard stays in place and the cost of the industrial carbon tax stays in place. We could remove all of them and families, seniors and truckers could save up to 25¢ a litre, but that is not what we are talking about here. It is what we could be talking about. Under the Conservative proposal, the relief would not vanish next February. It would last until at least Canada Day in 2027. It would be up to $1,000 of savings for the average Canadian family, which is real money that would help, but if members vote against even recognizing an affordability crisis in the House just hours ago, then why would anybody trust them to fix it? Throughout this debate, we have heard a lot of bluster from the other side and not so much on the facts point. I just want to lay out a timeline for those following, because some Liberal MPs have been trying to take credit for the ideas, and other Liberal MPs do not understand why they are doing it. On April 2, Conservatives called for federal taxes on gas and diesel to be removed for the rest of 2026. Twelve days later, the Liberals announced a partial version of that plan, pausing only the excise tax and only until Labour Day. Fast-forward to August 16, when we demanded cancellation of the Labour Day tax hike and removal of all the federal fuel taxes until at least Canada Day in 2027, and on September 2, the Liberals backed down again and announced that extension, which is the bill in front of us today. Each time, they arrived late, and each time, they brought less than Canadians needed. If not for our Conservative pressure, I do not think we would be debating this at all. If nobody on this side of the House had called for it, I do not think we would be standing here. I do not think it would have existed in the budget, which we should have seen a couple weeks ago, and I do not think they would have done it, because the current government has a habit of dealing with problems by pretending they do not exist, hence the vote earlier today, just as the Liberals are pretending that we are not in an affordability crisis by voting against Canadians, who are clearly living much of their lives in that crisis. In March, the Prime Minister told Canadians that affordability was the best it had been in a decade, but I want him to really look in the faces of a family and tell that to the family filling its minivan this week. Meanwhile, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, whom we heard from today, reports that the deficit went from $36 billion under Justin Trudeau in the last fiscal year, to $72 billion this year. That is not a little more spending. That is double. It is putting groceries on the credit card and calling it a budget. We will see what happens in the next couple of weeks. The problem still for all those families is that it is getting worse. Yesterday, Statistics Canada reported that inflation rose to 3.1% in September, up from 3% in August. Gasoline prices are up nearly 28% from a year ago. Fuel oil is up almost 58%, hitting families in Atlantic Canada the hardest, because that is what many of them there use to heat their home. Grocery prices are up 33% since 2020. We know there are lots of reasons for these costs rising, but today we are debating actually giving relief to families and taking some of that money off their bills. Families obviously feel this. Six in 10 Canadians say that at least half their paycheque is already spoken for before it even arrives. Yes, we need to do more, and Conservatives are never going to stand in the way of relief or a tax cut. That is what we came here to fight for, no matter how small it is and no matter how time-limited it is, because even a little money makes a difference for people who are facing strife in their communities right now all over the country. However, we will keep daring the government to do more. We will keep advocating from this side of the House, because the only reason we are having this conversation is that the Liberals were put in a corner to have to do this. We will keep making it very uncomfortable not to act, and we will keep speaking for all the families who need the relief, who need longer-term relief and who need bigger relief on their paycheques. The Liberals have already moved from denial to partial acceptance, and we see that with this bill. We just want them to go further. We want them to get rid of all the taxes that they continue to put on fuel, such as the fuel standard, which will eventually raise the price of gas by 17¢ a litre by 2030. First they refused to touch the gas tax, period, and now they are giving us a hidden carbon tax. We want them to not actually stop the tax cut on Labour Day, and we want them to stretch it for a few more months or even longer, as long as it takes for families to get out from under the affordability crisis the government has buried them in. If the Liberals want to keep borrowing ideas, that is fine. If the Liberals want to react to a strong opposition that is going to push them to do the right thing, that is fine, but we actually want them to get this done. Canadians should not have to wait for the Liberals to always catch up. They certainly should not have to watch the government take credit for doing the bare minimum. That is exactly what we are going to advocate for with this bill and so many others that will come to the floor of the House of Commons. We want real relief for families and for every Canadian from coast to coast.”
A repeated line
“Canada is officially in an affordability crisis.”
Said 8 times by 7 members since October 8.
Every time it was saidMr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt. I want to bring members back to a couple of hours ago when the House voted on a motion. We had a very simple vote on a very simple motion earlier today. I will read the text for everybody watching at home just so they see how simple it was. It reads: That the House officially recognize that: (a) the Liberals have been in power for 11 years; and (b) Canada is in an affordability crisis. The entire motion is one sentence, and nothing in it is untrue. The Liberals have been in power for 11 years, and we do not need a calendar to confirm that. On the second part, members can ask anybody across the country who is trying to save up to buy a place of their own, put food on the table consistently or even pay their bills, and they will tell them that the answer to that question is yes, Canada is in an affordability crisis. However, earlier today, every single Liberal MP on that side of the House stood up to oppose that motion, and in doing so, they denied reality. They denied the reality of millions of Canadians. They denied their own record in the same way they have been running from it since the Prime Minister got here. They pretend that the same MPs, the same cabinet ministers and the same advisers who served under Justin Trudeau, many of whom are now promoted, are somehow not responsible for everything that happened over the last 11 years. What is worse is that they deny the financial reality that millions of Canadians are living right now, just outside of this place. I invite them to visit a food bank in Toronto and defend that vote. Some have foolishly taken a picture in front of that food bank, but they should actually go in and see the rising numbers. Last year, Toronto food banks recorded 4.1 million visits, which is the highest number recorded, and a 340% increase since 2019. The line did not just double. It more than quadrupled. Maybe the Liberals could explain their vote to the 46% of Canadians who say that they are less than $200 away from not being able to pay their bills every single month. Maybe they could explain it to the nearly three in 10 who say they already do not earn enough to cover their bills and their debt together. That is who they voted against today when they voted to deny reality and deny the financial reality of so many of those people. That same denial runs through the legislation that we are debating again today. The government frames Bill C-38 as a major affordability measure. In reality, as we have heard many times, it would extend a temporary pause on one federal tax at the pump, which is a 10¢-a-litre excise tax. By the finance minister’s own math, that is about five dollars off of a 50-litre fill-up. It is something, that is for sure, but it is not enough. It is not enough for the affordability crisis that we are facing, and it comes with an expiry date, as if that affordability crisis, which was created over the last 11 years, would just automatically disappear. On February 1, half of that tax comes back and the relief drops to 5¢ a litre. On April 1, the rest comes off and the relief drops to zero. Every other federal charge built into the price of fuel stays in place, which means the GST stays in place, the clean fuel standard stays in place and the cost of the industrial carbon tax stays in place. We could remove all of them and families, seniors and truckers could save up to 25¢ a litre, but that is not what we are talking about here. It is what we could be talking about. Under the Conservative proposal, the relief would not vanish next February. It would last until at least Canada Day in 2027. It would be up to $1,000 of savings for the average Canadian family, which is real money that would help, but if members vote against even recognizing an affordability crisis in the House just hours ago, then why would anybody trust them to fix it? Throughout this debate, we have heard a lot of bluster from the other side and not so much on the facts point. I just want to lay out a timeline for those following, because some Liberal MPs have been trying to take credit for the ideas, and other Liberal MPs do not understand why they are doing it. On April 2, Conservatives called for federal taxes on gas and diesel to be removed for the rest of 2026. Twelve days later, the Liberals announced a partial version of that plan, pausing only the excise tax and only until Labour Day. Fast-forward to August 16, when we demanded cancellation of the Labour Day tax hike and removal of all the federal fuel taxes until at least Canada Day in 2027, and on September 2, the Liberals backed down again and announced that extension, which is the bill in front of us today. Each time, they arrived late, and each time, they brought less than Canadians needed. If not for our Conservative pressure, I do not think we would be debating this at all. If nobody on this side of the House had called for it, I do not think we would be standing here. I do not think it would have existed in the budget, which we should have seen a couple weeks ago, and I do not think they would have done it, because the current government has a habit of dealing with problems by pretending they do not exist, hence the vote earlier today, just as the Liberals are pretending that we are not in an affordability crisis by voting against Canadians, who are clearly living much of their lives in that crisis. In March, the Prime Minister told Canadians that affordability was the best it had been in a decade, but I want him to really look in the faces of a family and tell that to the family filling its minivan this week. Meanwhile, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, whom we heard from today, reports that the deficit went from $36 billion under Justin Trudeau in the last fiscal year, to $72 billion this year. That is not a little more spending. That is double. It is putting groceries on the credit card and calling it a budget. We will see what happens in the next couple of weeks. The problem still for all those families is that it is getting worse. Yesterday, Statistics Canada reported that inflation rose to 3.1% in September, up from 3% in August. Gasoline prices are up nearly 28% from a year ago. Fuel oil is up almost 58%, hitting families in Atlantic Canada the hardest, because that is what many of them there use to heat their home. Grocery prices are up 33% since 2020. We know there are lots of reasons for these costs rising, but today we are debating actually giving relief to families and taking some of that money off their bills. Families obviously feel this. Six in 10 Canadians say that at least half their paycheque is already spoken for before it even arrives. Yes, we need to do more, and Conservatives are never going to stand in the way of relief or a tax cut. That is what we came here to fight for, no matter how small it is and no matter how time-limited it is, because even a little money makes a difference for people who are facing strife in their communities right now all over the country. However, we will keep daring the government to do more. We will keep advocating from this side of the House, because the only reason we are having this conversation is that the Liberals were put in a corner to have to do this. We will keep making it very uncomfortable not to act, and we will keep speaking for all the families who need the relief, who need longer-term relief and who need bigger relief on their paycheques. The Liberals have already moved from denial to partial acceptance, and we see that with this bill. We just want them to go further. We want them to get rid of all the taxes that they continue to put on fuel, such as the fuel standard, which will eventually raise the price of gas by 17¢ a litre by 2030. First they refused to touch the gas tax, period, and now they are giving us a hidden carbon tax. We want them to not actually stop the tax cut on Labour Day, and we want them to stretch it for a few more months or even longer, as long as it takes for families to get out from under the affordability crisis the government has buried them in. If the Liberals want to keep borrowing ideas, that is fine. If the Liberals want to react to a strong opposition that is going to push them to do the right thing, that is fine, but we actually want them to get this done. Canadians should not have to wait for the Liberals to always catch up. They certainly should not have to watch the government take credit for doing the bare minimum. That is exactly what we are going to advocate for with this bill and so many others that will come to the floor of the House of Commons. We want real relief for families and for every Canadian from coast to coast.
“The government increased its deficit from $25 billion to $60 billion in under 10 years, and it will reach $83 billion by 2030. That is a 232% increase. That money does not go to nurses, groceries, or gas. It goes straight to paying interest on debt.”
“Mr. Speaker, I know that the member came here with a prepared speech to read to another member without listening to their speech, but I will just make something clear to the member opposite: One of the biggest reasons is that the government, in less than 10 years, went from a $25-billion deficit to a $60-billion deficit, only to go to an $83-billion deficit by 2030. That is a 232% increase. It is not for nurses, not for groceries and not for gas, and it does not go into the pockets of ordinary Canadians. It goes straight to interest payments. If the member wants to sit here and deny the record of all the members in the front benches for the last 11 years, he can do so, but he is going to have to look his constituents in the eye and explain that to them.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 23 of 100
None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, I know that the member came here with a prepared speech to read to another member without listening to their speech, but I will just make something clear to the member opposite: One of the biggest reasons is that the government, in less than 10 years, went from a $25-billion deficit to a $60-billion deficit, only to go to an $83-billion deficit by 2030. That is a 232% increase. It is not for nurses, not for groceries and not for gas, and it does not go into the pockets of ordinary Canadians. It goes straight to interest payments. If the member wants to sit here and deny the record of all the members in the front benches for the last 11 years, he can do so, but he is going to have to look his constituents in the eye and explain that to them.
“Canadians pushed for this fuel tax relief. Does my colleague think people will be doing well enough early next year to pay all these gas taxes again?”
“Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague that there has been pressure from the Conservatives and from Canadians for this relief on taxes and the excise tax. Does she believe that by January, February, March and April of the coming year, Canadians will be in such better shape that we could put all the taxes back on gasoline?”
Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague that there has been pressure from the Conservatives and from Canadians for this relief on taxes and the excise tax. Does she believe that by January, February, March and April of the coming year, Canadians will be in such better shape that we could put all the taxes back on gasoline?
“Canadians cannot afford everyday life right now. The government's temporary tax cuts do not go far enough, and earlier today, other members voted against tax relief. After 11 years of Liberal rule, things will only get worse for Canadians because the Liberals broke the system.”
“Mr. Speaker, we voted on a very simple motion in the House today. Again I will remind other members that they stood up and voted against it, recognizing that Canada is in an affordability crisis. There is a problem with these temporary measures that do not go far enough. Coupled with the vote today, if someone does not recognize and does not admit to themselves that we are in an affordability crisis, if they do not listen to their constituents and do not look at Canadians out there, then they can never truly solve it and can never truly do the work to help Canadians. If we look to January and February, the record of the Liberal government over the course of the 11 years will continue, and things will continue to get worse, not because this country is broken but because the Liberals broke it.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 33 of 100
None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.
See full analysisReply to a debate question
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 analysisMr. Speaker, we voted on a very simple motion in the House today. Again I will remind other members that they stood up and voted against it, recognizing that Canada is in an affordability crisis. There is a problem with these temporary measures that do not go far enough. Coupled with the vote today, if someone does not recognize and does not admit to themselves that we are in an affordability crisis, if they do not listen to their constituents and do not look at Canadians out there, then they can never truly solve it and can never truly do the work to help Canadians. If we look to January and February, the record of the Liberal government over the course of the 11 years will continue, and things will continue to get worse, not because this country is broken but because the Liberals broke it.
“We will vote for this bill because it cuts taxes and helps families. But the government must admit that people need much more help than this.”
“Mr. Speaker, I wish the member had listened to my speech before he asked the question. Of course we will vote for affordability measures. Of course we will vote for tax cuts. It is a small piece of relief for families that need it. However, we want the Liberals to recognize that a whole lot more needs to be done. It was needed well before the member got here and will be needed well after he is gone.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 100 of 100
Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, I wish the member had listened to my speech before he asked the question. Of course we will vote for affordability measures. Of course we will vote for tax cuts. It is a small piece of relief for families that need it. However, we want the Liberals to recognize that a whole lot more needs to be done. It was needed well before the member got here and will be needed well after he is gone.
“We want to lower taxes for all Canadian families for as long as we can. The government should cut its wasteful spending and borrowing instead of keeping taxes high.”
“Mr. Speaker, we certainly want to reduce taxes for every single Canadian family for as long as possible, and we want to do it by cutting the frivolous spending of the Liberal government, the spending that continues to go up and that charges Canadians interest on its borrowed dime.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 17 of 100
None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, we certainly want to reduce taxes for every single Canadian family for as long as possible, and we want to do it by cutting the frivolous spending of the Liberal government, the spending that continues to go up and that charges Canadians interest on its borrowed dime.
