Carlos Leitão

In response to a question from Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

“The date is set in the bill. Gas prices are high right now because oil costs more, and we hope that gets better soon. This tax cut will end in March 2027.”

“Mr. Speaker, the date is in the bill. The current situation reflects the rise in crude oil prices. Like everyone else, we hope this situation will be resolved. The measure we will be voting on here in the House expires at the end of March 2027.”

In response to a question from Louis Villeneuve

“High fuel prices are a global problem, and world economic groups say governments should use temporary measures to help. Countries like Spain and Germany are temporarily lowering fuel prices right now. This oil price spike will not last forever, and prices will drop again once the shipping routes clear up. We should pass this temporary relief until that happens.”

“Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a global situation that affects not only Canada, but also all other countries. What is being suggested, whether by the OECD, the International Monetary Fund or even the World Bank, in the face of a shock like the one we are currently experiencing, is that governments respond in a targeted, temporary way. That is what is happening elsewhere. That is what is happening in some European countries, in Spain, for example, and in Germany as well. These are temporary measures that are lowering fuel prices. Everyone wants that. Everyone assumes that the oil shock is artificial in some way, because it is caused by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, and that eventually this situation will subside and oil prices will return to where they were before, around $60 to $70 a barrel. Then we will no longer require the kind of assistance that is currently being implemented.”

In response to a question from Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

“This fuel tax break is temporary. The bill says the full tax comes back automatically in April 2027.”

“Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑38 clearly states that, as of January 2027, the suspension of the excise tax will be reduced by half and that on April 1, we will return to where we were before. Yes, the tax suspension will be eliminated. We will go back to where we were. That is why I have said several times that this is a temporary measure.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I want the House to pass this bill. Wars and global problems have pushed gas prices up and made life expensive. This bill temporarily pauses the fuel tax to save drivers up to 10 cents a litre.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to take part in today’s important debate on the third reading of Bill C-38, the Canadian fuel affordability act. This bill aims to extend the federal excise tax on gasoline, diesel and aviation fuels. This is a very important issue at a time when many Canadian families continue to face a high cost of living. Some of them find it difficult to afford groceries, fill up their gas tank and pay all their bills. Before we continue, I would like to clarify a few things about the affordability challenges we are all facing. Let me start by saying that this is a global issue. Ultimately, all OECD countries are now feeling the effects of an affordability crisis that is challenging for many households. We need to try to put this into context. In fact, we need to go back to the time of the COVID‑19 pandemic. I know that seems like a long time ago, but it really had a significant impact on the global economy, especially in the period following the COVID‑19 pandemic, when consumer spending here, as elsewhere, rebounded very quickly, even as supply chains remained disrupted and were not yet operating at full capacity. This led to high and rapid inflation, here as elsewhere. In Canada, for example, the inflation rate reached 8%, a level not seen in generations. As a result, many Canadians, as well as Americans, Europeans, and Japanese, were caught off guard by this rapid rise in inflation and all the upheaval it caused. Just as we were starting to get a bit of a handle on the situation, the war in Ukraine broke out, triggering a sharp increase in energy prices due to the entirely justified boycott of Russian oil and natural gas exports. Ironically, some countries are currently backtracking on that boycott, but that is a discussion for another day. All of that contributed to a sharp increase in energy prices, which has kept inflation high and forced central banks to raise interest rates very quickly. This rise in interest rates also had an impact on housing affordability, as mortgage rates suddenly began to rise rapidly. Meanwhile, very few Canadian households were prepared to cope with those rising mortgage rates. In many cases, they rose from barely 1% to 3%, 4% or 5%. Needless to say, that can dramatically alter a family’s budget. Thus, a global crisis and a full-blown energy crisis were followed by shocks in food production, since Ukraine was also a major grain exporter. The price of raw food materials, in particular, rose rapidly as a result. All of this happened at the same time and, to make matters worse, in February 2026, a new war broke out in the Middle East, which led to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Suddenly the price of oil was back up to $100 a barrel. Just when things were beginning to get back to normal, everything went off the rails again. This situation began a long time ago outside of Canada, and it is complicated for us and for other countries. It is also worth noting, and so I will point it out, that there is a difference between the very high cost of living caused by all of the crises that I just mentioned, which caused price increases year after year, and the rate of inflation. As we saw this week, the inflation rate in Canada is currently 3.1% , which is not that far outside the Bank of Canada’s target range. The biggest factor driving inflation right now, in September and October 2026, is energy prices, gas prices. In Canada, the inflation rate is less than 2% if we exclude gasoline. The most recent shocks that have occurred since February 2026 because of the war in the Middle East are having a major impact on inflation. Inflation is returning to the target range, but the cost of living remains very high. That is the situation we are facing today. Similar conditions exist in many parts of the world. Naturally, our government cannot control decisions made elsewhere. What we can control, however, is what we do here at home. We can put in place measures that help families and households cope with these challenges. In a situation where the shock is external and persistent, government measures must be targeted, timely and temporary. They must be phased out quickly, because there is no certainty as to how long these external pressures may last. Through Bill C‑38, we will make it possible for millions of Canadians to save money by continuing to suspend the excise tax on gasoline. Canadians who drive to work and those who take their children to school or to sporting activities can continue to do so. The bill proposes to extend the suspension of the federal fuel excise tax until January 31, 2027. In February and March 2027, rates will then gradually return to just half their usual level, before returning, on April 1, 2027, to what they were. Canadians will therefore keep receiving relief of up to 10¢ a litre until January 31. Since that announcement was made, and although the price of crude oil remains above $100 a barrel, the price of gasoline has increased a bit, but remains relatively stable. As we had hoped, this shows that extending the excise tax suspension is directly benefiting Canadian consumers. We have seen all that take effect now. The government estimates that this extension will provide about $2.9 billion in additional tax relief to Canadians, raising the total fuel tax relief to approximately $5.3 billion in the 2026-27 fiscal year. It is important to mention that the cost of this to the government is substantial, at $5.3 billion. We are well aware that it is substantial. We are well aware that it takes effort, but it is effort that the government is willing to make, considering the steep rise in fuel prices confronting Canadian households. Something had to be done, and we acted quickly by implementing targeted measures aimed at lowering the price of gas. This is a temporary measure because, of course, we, like everyone else, want the crude oil market to return to more normal, stable levels, similar to where it was before hostilities broke out in late February 2026. We will reassess this at the appropriate time, but we are confident that this is a temporary situation and that our support measures should also be temporary. However, as I said, it is a substantial amount. We need to find a way to fit this $5.3 billion into the federal budget. As the Minister of Finance mentioned earlier today, the budget will be tabled on November 5, and we will be able to measure the progress of Canada’s public finances at that time. All that to say that $5.3 billion is no small sum. Canadian households can count on this significant support to help them get through this tough period. This measure is in addition to other measures that we have already put in place, such as the Canada groceries and essentials benefit and the tax cuts that we had previously made. These are a few measures that we have put in place and that we believe are necessary to help people get through this situation, but we should not assume that they will be permanent, because, as I just mentioned, the cost to the public purse is pretty substantial. However, there is a real need and we are in a real emergency, which fully justifies this situation. Bill C‑38 is a necessary tool. We have clearly recognized this reality, and we are responding to it. As Canadians continue to suffer the consequences of an uncertain global context, our government is taking action to help them. Bill C‑38 is a perfect example of that. It is a targeted measure that will help all Canadians cope with the cost of living. This is a measure that will provide real, direct help to families, workers and businesses. I therefore enthusiastically urge everyone here in the House to support Bill C‑38 and vote in favour of it.”

In response to a question from Jason Groleau

“Fuel prices are high all over the world because of oil shortages, not our taxes. We are helping people with our social programs, but the Conservatives want to end those programs.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind our colleagues opposite that the price of diesel is high in Canada, the United States, France, Germany, the United Kingdom and even Brazil and Japan. This situation is international, caused by an interruption in crude oil deliveries. We are helping consumers and Canadians through the social programs we have put in place. Our colleagues are not fond of social programs. We know that, and now we know that they would get rid of them all.”

In response to a question from Braedon Clark

“The federal government and the provinces must work together. We have been talking and working with them since April 2025. Most provinces agree with us, and we want to keep working with them.”

“Mr. Speaker, in fact, yes, the member, I and several other colleagues in the House were also in provincial legislatures, and it is extremely important that the federal government and the provinces are able to co-operate. Ever since April 2025, we have clearly been in a period of co-operative federalism. We talk with the provinces, we collaborate and we move forward together. That is the only way we are going to achieve something. The provinces are onside, generally speaking, and we are ready and willing to co-operate with them further.”

In response to a question from Xavier Barsalou-Duval

“We are not getting rid of environmental rules with this bill. We are just making the review process faster. Our relationship with the United States has permanently changed, and Canada must adapt to that reality.”

“Mr. Speaker, I disagree with that; that is not what we are doing. Give me a break. What we are doing is speeding up the process. We are not scrapping regulations. We are speeding up the way in which regulations are reviewed. I want to add one final point. This is not an excuse. It is not because of Trump. This is the reality. The U.S. administration has irreversibly changed the Canada–U.S. relationship. We must adapt to this new world. It is not an excuse. It is not something that will magically disappear in 2029. It will not disappear.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Pat Kelly

“The Prime Minister and I have only been in office since April 2025. Our focus now is on growing Canada's economy faster and in a lasting way.”

“Mr. Speaker, I have been a member of the House since April 2025, as have many of my colleagues, and the Prime Minister has been leading this country since April 2025. What we are focused on is improving and accelerating the pace of economic growth in Canada in a sustainable and meaningful way.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I want the House to pass this bill. It will speed up government approvals for big building projects so we can get them done faster. This will help our economy adapt to the trade war with the United States and help build more housing.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is my turn to say a few words about Bill C-39, which, as some of my colleagues have already mentioned, is primarily an economic bill. It is a set of measures. I am fully aware that it is a rather complete piece of legislation, let me put it that way, that is absolutely necessary in order to accelerate our economy and our economic growth. We were elected, a year and a half or so ago, to build Canada strong and to rebuild the Canadian economy. To do that, we need to speed up the process of approvals. Basically, we need to get things done. In order to get things done, we do require several legislative changes to make sure the Canadian economy adapts to the new environment. I start with the context of why we are doing this now. We are doing this now, first of all, because it has to be done. We would have had to have done this in any case to modernize and update our regulatory framework. However, the context right now is particularly complex and requires a major structural reform, which is what this bill would contribute, to achieve. The context is one of a trade war that we did not start. The trade war was imposed on us totally arbitrarily and totally without regard for the fact that the Canadian economy and the U.S. economy, at least for the past 30 years, were increasingly integrated, particularly our industrial sectors, which are completely integrated. It is not the case that Canada is like a mini U.S. and that we produce everything here that is produced in the United States, only on a smaller scale. It is not that at all. The Canadian economy has specialized in a relatively small number of sectors and products that are completely integrated into the North American supply chain. Our neighbours to the south, particularly the administration, and we should not mix things up as it is the U.S. administration, has total disregard for that integration and has decided to disintegrate the North American economy, break it apart, saying it does not need anything we make here. Well, it does need it, but regardless of that, it believes it does not need what we have here. Therefore we have to pivot. We have to change our structure. We have to make products that are in demand in the local market, so there is some import substitution going on. At the same time, we have to look for other markets, other opportunities, elsewhere in the world. With this bill, we would try to accomplish that pivot. To do that, there are a number of things we need to do. First of all, we need to make sure we are actually able to approve projects, particularly in the infrastructure world. We have to improve our infrastructure. We have to improve our ability to move goods and people across this country. Massive improvements to our infrastructure are required, and the bill would accelerate the process. I can already hear our friends from the Bloc Québécois saying that this would be a massive intrusion into areas of provincial responsibility and provincial jurisdiction. Let us be clear: What we are proposing to do would apply to federal legislation and federal regulations. We would not in any way be changing or forcing any sort of change in provincial regulations. We clearly invite the provinces as well to participate in this process and to harmonize. In fact, seven provinces have already signed agreements with the federal government, so the objective we have, which is one project, one approval process and one year, that it gets done within one year, will speed things up if indeed the provinces are already onside. If they are not, well, then provincial legislation and provincial procedures will remain in place. The objective is to build a stronger, more resilient economy, a more productive economy and ultimately a more independent economy. By the way, we have also talked a lot in the House, since we came back, about affordability issues and the high cost of living, which is a fact and is top of mind for most Canadians. I will say two things about that. First of all, we do have the necessary social programs to help Canadians get over, or adjust and adapt to, this higher-cost environment. Social programs are important. In fact, a robust social safety net is one of the characteristics of Canada. Canada is Canada in no small measure because we care about each other and because we help people at the lower-income levels with targeted and somewhat generous social programs. We will continue to do that. In fact, we have added quite a bit to those social programs. However, more fundamentally, the only way to improve affordability on a long-term, sustainable basis is to improve productivity. Improved productivity will lead to a much more efficient economy, which will allow incomes to go up. If incomes go up, then life becomes more affordable. The government, the state, cannot and should not directly regulate prices. That does not work. It has been shown in many instances in many other countries that it does not work. However, if we put in place policies that promote investment and promote productivity growth, incomes will rise, and then Canadians will be able to afford life and lead a better life. There is also an issue with the supply side. There are certain areas where supply is an issue, namely in housing. In housing, one of the big contributors to the high cost of living, the high cost of rents and the high cost of houses is supply. There is not sufficient supply. Again, it is a complex, complicated issue. Bill C-39 would not necessarily address that directly, but indirectly in a way, yes, it would, because we would be improving infrastructure. One of the issues on the housing side, one of the factors that are holding construction back, is also the poor state of municipal infrastructure in many cases right across all provinces, including in my province and in my riding in particular. The basic municipal infrastructure, such as sewers, water treatment plants and things like that, is holding back construction as well. Therefore, if we are able to accelerate processes and accelerate building, then that would contribute. Again, let us not forget the demand side: the increase in incomes that can occur in a sustained way only if the economy becomes more productive. That requires massive investment, and the principal objective of Bill C-39 is to make sure that required investment will take place. It has been particularly complex, and it takes quite a bit of time for a major project to be approved in Canada, and clearly what we would do is to massively accelerate that project. There are three components to Bill C-39. We are going to build now, and we have to accelerate movement and be strong for all Canadians.”

In response to a question from Tamara Kronis

“This tax cut should be temporary, not permanent. Global experts say governments should only use temporary help during hard times so they do not mess up the market. We do not know what oil prices will be in the future, but once the market calms down, this tax break should end.”

“Madam Speaker, indeed, as I pointed out, which is recommended by independent agencies like the World Bank and the IMF, governments should resist the temptation to put in place permanent measures that may distort markets. In a period of need, as is the case now, we should put in place temporary measures. I do not know what will be happening in January. We do not know if the war will still be going on in the Strait of Hormuz and if crude oil prices will remain above $100, but at some point, the oil market will return to a more stable level, and at that time, the temporary measures will be removed.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Gord Johns

“We will watch the markets to make sure they work properly, but that is all. Things work best when the government lets the market run on its own.”

“Madam Speaker, as I just alluded to at the end of my remarks, we will continue to monitor markets to make sure that markets continue to function properly, and that is the extent of it. We believe that when markets function, resources are allocated in the most efficient way.”

In response to a question from Kelly McCauley

“I want the House to pass this bill. Wars in Ukraine and the Middle East are pushing up fuel prices all over the world. This bill keeps the federal fuel tax pause in place until early 2027, then slowly brings it back. This gives families temporary relief at the gas pump while keeping our spending under control.”

“Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford. Like most members, I spent the summer talking with folks in my riding. One of the issues that keep coming back to us as parliamentarians is the cost of living, the fact that everything is more expensive and the fact that businesses and families are indeed having trouble meeting their needs. At the same time, Canadians, at least in my riding, expressed their confidence in the government’s action, in the government’s plan and in the government’s attempts to assist the Canadian economy. What those folks in my riding told me, and I think it is quite right, is that difficulties and the impact on the cost of living, on the overall price levels, have come from a series of shocks that have hit our economy, shocks that have come from abroad. In fact, affordability and the cost of living are issues in Canada, in the United States, in France, in the U.K., in Germany, in Japan, in Brazil and all over the world. They come from the same source, and that source is the supply shocks we have had since 2022, ever since the invasion of Ukraine, followed by the very uneven recovery from the pandemic, which was happening at the same time. Later on, more recently, there are the very significant price shocks we have had as a result of the war in the Middle East. These are global issues that have a real impact on pocketbooks and on Canadians’ ability to face difficulties. We as a government have put in place a number of measures that help their bottom line and at the same time will contribute significantly to diversifying our economy, diversifying our markets, finding new markets and continuing to grow. As an example, the World Bank, which I do not think can be confused with any sort of Liberal-friendly outfit, has stated: Attacks on energy infrastructure and shipping disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz, which handles about 35% of global seaborne crude oil trade, have triggered the largest oil supply shock on record, with an initial reduction in global oil supply of about 10 million barrels per day. Even after moderating from their recent peak, Brent oil prices [remain very high, at around the $100 per barrel mark]. Energy prices will continue to remain high throughout the world, at least until the situation is addressed in the Middle East. The chief economist of the World Bank added, “Governments must resist the temptation of broad, untargeted fiscal support measures that could distort markets and erode fiscal buffers. Instead, they should focus on rapid, temporary support targeted to the most vulnerable households.” This is what we have been doing. This is what we are doing with Bill C-38, and this is what we will continue to do. We will be there to continue to support Canadian families with targeted and temporary support. When we announced the fuel excise tax break back in the spring, it was to come to an end on September 7. Of course, by September 7, the situation was far from resolved in the Middle East. In fact, it is getting worse. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate that we extend this program for a few more months, until the end of January 2027. I think there is broad support in the House for us to do that. On that, we have said that it will extend after January 31 for two extra months, so it will be a gradual withdrawal. The 10¢-a-litre excise tax relief would not be removed in one shot. It would be removed by 50% until March 31, and then the other 50% would be after March 31. There would be a gradual removal of this support, because as the World Bank and the IMF have pointed out, support for families has to be temporary and has to be targeted to the most vulnerable households. This, in essence, is what we did with the groceries and essentials benefit. It is very targeted. In this case, it is support for five years, but it is very targeted to those most in need. As members will recall, the groceries and essentials benefit is modelled on the old GST rebate, which by definition is targeted to families at the lowest end of the scale. Once again, it is important to resist the temptation to have broad, untargeted fiscal measures because we need to avoid distorting markets. We need to make sure that fiscal buffers remain. We do have the fiscal capacity now to do this, and that is why we are doing it, but it has to be temporary and it has to be targeted. This support would reduce the pressure on prices at the pump. It may seem insignificant, but it is not. At 10¢ a litre, it is significant. The other issue we need to continue to monitor is that the industry itself does not adjust its margins and that this 10¢-a-litre reduction is fully passed on to the final consumer. We will continue to monitor markets very closely to make sure that there is no attempt to sidestep this measure. Going back to the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, a family of four will receive $1,890 this year and about $1,400 a year for the next four years. Again, this is targeted to the families most in need. We are putting more money in the pockets of those who need it most, and we are also leaving more money in the pockets of the middle class with the middle-class tax cut that was implemented right off the bat when we came into power. There are other measures we put in place with the last budget, and there is nothing to say that we will not be doing that again if need be. As long as support is targeted and temporary, I think we should do that. For the time being, in Canada anyway, we are not noticing any shortages of products. It is really a question of affordability that is caused by events completely beyond our control. These are global events that are affecting the same issue in all developed and developing nations. The crucial point here is for the Canadian government to retain its fiscal buffers, its fiscal capacity to intervene, because we must continue to protect families. We will still have that fiscal capacity if we continue to be prudent.”

• Echo ×12

  A repeated line

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

  Said 12 times by 9 members since April 30.

  Every time it was said →