“High prices are not going away soon, but this fuel tax relief is only short-term. I want the member to explain why we are not making this tax relief permanent to help keep food costs down.”

“Madam Speaker, my colleague seems to have lost his way in the last answer, but I am grateful for the fact that he acknowledged the collaboration that has been taking place among the parties in order to provide relief to Canadians. My colleague from Mirabel noted that the price pressures here are not short-term and yet the relief is short-term. I wonder if the member can explain why this relief is short-term and why we are not taking the longer-term actions that would bring stability to things like food costs by extending this indefinitely.”

“Canadians used to be able to afford their own dentist visits and groceries. The Liberals have only added to the national debt, which means higher taxes and higher costs for everyone. I want to know why they are making Canadians rely on government programs for everything.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member opposite went on and on about socialized dentistry and Maoist food programs, but it used to be that Canadians could afford to pay for their own dentistry, and they could afford to buy groceries and feed their children what they wanted. The Liberals have not paid down any debt since 2015, when they were first elected, and that interest keeps on accumulating. It results in taxes, more taxes and unaffordability for Canadians. Why does the member opposite want Canadians to be dependent upon government for everything?”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Respect 80 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “Why does the member opposite want Canadians to be dependent upon government for everything?”.

  See full analysis →

“I support this bill to cut the fuel tax, but it is not enough on its own. Cutting this tax was a Conservative idea that the government took. Life is too expensive for Canadians right now, and food bank use is at record levels. The government needs to use more Conservative ideas and stop expensive projects that drive up inflation.”

“Mr. Speaker, welcome to the chair. It is an honour for me to get up to talk about affordability on behalf of the constituents of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, specifically with respect to Bill C-38, the Canadian fuel affordability act. By the way, I am sharing my time with a member forFort McMurray—Cold Lake. The government has framed Bill C-38 as a collaboration among the parties and members within the House, which is not entirely accurate, because long before I came here, the leader of the Conservative Party, and the Conservatives as well, were talking about affordability and the pressures Canadians were under. In fact, the leader of the Conservative Party was actually pushing for this tax break at the pumps long before I came along, specifically through the campaign. It has just dawned on the Liberals this past year that, yes, maybe Canadians are having a tough time and that maybe they should save them some money at the gas pumps. Then they had the revelation that affordability has not gotten better in Canada but has gotten worse, and that they should extend the tax break to help Canadians. That was a Conservative idea, among many other Conservative ideas that the Liberals took. We applauded the idea of getting rid of the carbon tax, because that was a Conservative idea. Then the Liberals said they were taking away only the consumer carbon tax and keeping the industrial carbon tax, but that we should not worry as it is not going to affect affordability. Anybody will tell us that any kind of business that gets additional expenses, including taxes, will not absorb it. They eventually pass it on to the consumer. I agree there are a lot of different components that add to inflation and the cost of living. This is just one small component. Therefore, if anything, while I do applaud this measure because it is a Conservative measure, I will be asking the government to take more of our Conservative ideas to save Canadians money, not just at the pump but also to deliver the promise of actually making groceries affordable so we have something, as the Prime Minister requested, to judge him on: the prices at the grocery store. Overall, this one measure is not going to fix affordability, but it would help. It is assistance for families and especially for our young people when fuelling up at the gas pumps. I also agree with the members of the Liberal government who said that feeding children in schools is not a new initiative. My own band, for instance, started doing that not only for children in schools but also for seniors, because we had own-source revenue by engaging the economy. It is not new, but having to feed children in schools is at record levels in Canada, a first world country. Record levels of people are visiting food banks in Canada in a single month, over two million, of which approximately 30% are children. Given where I come from, I can understand that. I understand the hardship and heartbreak of a middle-class family. One in five of the people who are visiting a food bank has a job. This is what I noticed as an MLA in Victoria, when I used to walk to work. I walked past the food bank. Once a week it would have a food distribution. Slowly I started seeing minivans parking outside and people eating the food they had taken from the food bank. It was hard to ignore. This affordability issue is not what it was 20 years ago. The middle class is now affected. They are now struggling to the point where even our young, educated professionals are looking to leave Canada because of the cost of living. There is a lack of opportunity. There are no projects getting approved. Nothing is moving in Canada. In terms of our young people and our future, I do not know about the rest of the people here, but where I come from, we always looked to see what the future of our country is going to be, what our province is going to be, what our region is going to be and what our community is going to be, for the benefit of ourselves and, more importantly, for the benefit of our kids and our grandkids, especially in a place like Canada. What was the Liberal proposal at a convention? It was for those young people to try to find a better life elsewhere, abroad, maybe in the United States. The proposal was to think about a $500,000 exit tax. If they cannot afford life as it is in Canada, how are they going to afford $500,000 to leave Canada? That is cruel. It is not investing in the future. How can we invest in the future when we are not looking at how Canadians are struggling? The Liberals are praising their dental plan and are asking how come the Conservatives keep criticizing it. When I go back to my riding, seniors approach me and tell me how they do not qualify. They make too much money under their pension. I actually stopped a senior citizen in Kitimat, who was shopping. She had one item in her cart. It was bread at 50% off because it was old bread. She did not even go to the store for bread. She goes there regularly for the opportunity to find something on sale. She had one item. There are a lot more measures the Conservatives have proposed that the Liberal government should entertain and that should pass. The four or five proposals that the Liberals borrowed from the Conservatives and implemented in the last campaign were a good sign that the Liberals are finally waking up to how Canadians are struggling. The suspension of the fuel tax is one small measure that can help, but it is not going to be enough. We agree that there are global situations that are making this situation worse, things that we cannot control, but there are things in Canada that we can control, including what we are talking about here today: extending the fuel tax break. The government could stop the inflationary borrowing and budgets that are being proposed. It could stop some of the projects that will increase inflation, such as the $90-billion Alto high-speed rail project. That is $90 billion that we do not have. This is a great announcement, but it is certainly not enough. Will it affect affordability, especially for people who do not even have cars? This just keeps piling up. As we go through the debate, and I am sure a lot of members can see this, costs are continuing to go up, based on the Liberal government’s own debates and based on global pressures. Can the government focus on affordability for Canadians? Within our own circle of what is Canada, can we focus on things we can do here now to help, such as what the Conservatives have been talking about since long before I got here? We will continue to fight for affordability for Canadians, fight for young people and fight for a better Canada, but the Liberal government has to take more of the direction that is coming from this side, not just the four or five ideas it has taken from the Conservatives over the last year.”

“The government praises its dental plan, but many seniors cannot get it. This confuses seniors. The government needs to be honest with Canadians.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would love to ask that senior why they do not qualify and why the government keeps getting up and trumpeting, as if this program were the best thing in the world, when a lot of the seniors, especially in my riding, do not even qualify in the first place. Why are there two signals, two messages? When we are really talking affordability, why is the senior so confused that they cannot get the dental plan that the Liberals are championing as the best thing in the world since sliced bread? Just be honest with Canadians.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 46 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Life is too expensive right now. Interest rates have doubled, mortgages are up, and farmers face record diesel prices. We need to pass this bill because it will make gas more affordable.”

“Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from Skeena—Bulkley Valley made a number of great points this morning. I was talking with a staffer. They had a five-year mortgage term ending at 1.92%, but unfortunately, five years later, now it is over 4%, so we are talking affordability. The Liberals continue to borrow at record rates. There has been a doubling of the interest rate, and a staffer was discussing, in her conversation, the affordability issue. The legislation would help. There is no question that Bill C-38 would help with the affordability of gas. I hear it in my province, because farmers are dealing with diesel and its record prices. However, I just want to talk about the hon. member’s experience with young people and the affordability issue.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 37 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Young people see no future in Canada because housing and everyday life cost too much. The government talks about energy, but does nothing. We must fix our economy and make life affordable so Canada is strong again.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is as if every young person across Canada does not see a future here, not only in terms of the affordability of a house and the cost of living but also where their future is in a profession. We are talking around the issue of Canada’s becoming an energy superpower, but there is no action. We have so many different issues with Canada, but the economy and affordability are probably number one in terms of how we move forward as a strong, independent country, because the last 10 years have actually put us in a situation where Canadians are struggling, and we are trying to figure out how we move into the new global geopolitical world we are moving into when we really do not have the strength to do it.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  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 analysis →

“Our governments are not preparing for climate impacts like forest fires. British Columbia is not managing its forests to lower fire risks. The federal government should lead by example on the lands it controls. I hope the Conservatives will put forward a plan to do this.”

“Mr. Speaker, that question is actually very relevant. In terms of what the governments are doing, not only federally but provincially as well, we are not adapting. We have all these measures that propose to lessen the risk, but they are not doing anything about adapting to what happening in our regions. There is no measure of activity for the provincial government of B.C., for instance, to talk about forestry management in terms of forest fire risk, but Canada should be setting an example. Canada has federal lands it is responsible for, and the Indian Act lands as well. We should be setting an example, and hopefully the Conservatives will be coming up with exactly that idea.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“I support this bill because it lowers fuel taxes, but it does not go far enough. Life is too expensive for Canadians, especially in rural areas where people must drive long distances. Higher fuel costs also make food more expensive. The government should remove all federal taxes on gas and diesel instead.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise that people are struggling with the cost of living, and it is incumbent on us as legislators not only to listen but to act. Any tax on fuel, whether it be gas or diesel, is ultimately a tax on food. Whether the government wants to admit it or not is another question for another day, but Canadians are out of money and do not have time to wait for us to agree. I will start off by saying that while I do not think this goes far enough, it is a step in the right direction. Conservatives have been calling for the Liberals to remove taxes on fuel for months. It is nice to see that at least some of the Liberals on the other side do in fact take lessons from Conservatives. I do not believe we would be here today debating this bill had it not been for the relentless pressure from Conservatives and our Conservative caucus over the last number of years on this very topic. Conservatives like me are fighting for Canadians, who are working hard but find themselves unable to get ahead. Some 35% of Canadians say they are anxious about money, and 28% lack emergency savings to cover basic needs. Canadian families are paying 7.8% more for transportation, while the cost of groceries rose 3.1%. Well over half, or 56% of parents, said they could not fit the cost of back-to-school supplies into their normal budgets. To some, this might just seem like numbers, but do not be fooled. Behind every number and statistic is a story from a Canadian struggling to get by: someone who is pulling their groceries off the conveyor as the till ticks up faster than they expected, a family who was not quite able to complete the back-to-school shopping list because they just did not have the funds or the children who are no longer in organized sports because there is not enough money in the family budget to drive them there and back. These are the real stories of the real Canadians I heard from this summer, and I know that many of my colleagues heard very similar stories from their constituents. These are Canadians who are hard-working and have done everything right, but they find themselves in a spot where inflation is going up faster than their paycheque, and they are navigating countless challenges. This summer specifically, I heard from a number of people who are navigating challenging consumer proposals, bankruptcies and foreclosures and who are facing financial ruin because they simply could not keep up for too many months in a row. In far too many of these cases, there are children involved. The kids might not fully understand what this means, but they do know that their parents are stressed out and do not quite understand why. According to the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy, insolvencies have climbed to levels not seen since the aftermath of the great recession. Let that sink in. We are seeing insolvencies at a rate we have not seen since the great recession, while consumer insolvencies rose another 6.9% year over year. At the same time, mortgage delinquencies have reached their highest level since 2021. Again, behind every single one of these stats is a story of a real Canadian struggling. These are heartbreaking stories, and they are becoming far too common. Canadians already owe an average of $1.76 for every dollar of disposable household income they earn, and MNP reports that more than 40% are within $200 of insolvency at month-end. It means that 40% of Canadians are within $200 of not being able to pay their bills every single month. Many families have exhausted all of their savings, refinanced their debt and begged and borrowed simply to afford rent, mortgages and everyday necessities like groceries and school supplies. These are real-life consequences of more than a decade of Liberal mismanagement of our economy. While this bill would in fact offer some relief, it is not the cure for the out-of-control inflation Canadians are still facing. If the Liberals were serious about helping Canadian families make ends meet, they would not stop at a 10¢-per-litre break and pat themselves on the back. They would adopt our plan to remove all federal taxes on gas and diesel until at least Canada Day 2027. That means giving Canadians a break from the excise tax and the GST on gas and diesel, and permanently scrapping the seven-cents-per-litre clean fuel standard and the industrial carbon tax. This could provide 25¢ of savings per litre of gas and diesel and would bring as much as $1,000 of savings to the average Canadian family. A recent poll found that 63% of Canadians oppose the Liberal government bringing back the fuel excise tax, including 43% who strongly oppose it. There is no surprise to that because all families see are their gas prices continuing to go up month over month, or day to day, it seems. This opposition is not just concentrated in one part of the country. It crosses every region of the country: 71% in the member opposite’s riding in Manitoba and Saskatchewan; 64% in British Columbia, Alberta and Atlantic Canada; 62% in Ontario; and 60% in Quebec. It is clear that Canadians are asking for it. They need relief from the cost of living crisis. I live in rural Alberta. I represent rural Albertans. Many of my colleagues have no idea of the lengths we routinely need to travel just to live life, whether it is to go to work, take our children to school or day care, go to a medical appointment or visit family and friends. It is a 300-kilometre trip for me just to get out of town. I do not think most people in this chamber, whether they are a Conservative, Liberal or Bloc member, understand the lengths that many of us rural MPs go to to serve our constituents. Every single penny saved at the pump gives people a choice. It gives them the choice of what food they are going to put on the table for dinner that night, which events they can attend, which bills they can pay and how they can plan for their future. It gives them agency. It makes it so they are not dependent on government for every single decision in their life. For some across the country, the monthly gas or diesel bill is relatively small, but for many of the amazing people I represent, it is not small. It is a significant part of their monthly budget, and it seems to only ever go up. It is also not an optional line in their budget. Most people I represent cannot take transit most of the time because it either does not work for their schedule or simply does not exist at all. Most people cannot walk, as the distances are simply too far, and in the winter, the brutal prairie cold is not for the faint of heart. They often do not have a choice; they must drive, and every time fuel prices go up, they feel it. They understand a concept that somehow seems to elude many Liberals: When fuel prices go up, grocery prices follow, because food does not just magically appear on the table like my kids sometimes think it does, or teleport to a grocery store. It gets transported on a truck. Those trucks use diesel, and the operators of those companies cannot simply absorb those costs. Freight costs then get passed on to consumers. It is really basic economics. Conservatives are fighting to restore affordability by lowering taxes, unleashing investment, removing barriers to growth and advancing a real economic action plan that helps Canadians get ahead. The Conservative economic action plan would green-light the 500 projects that are sitting somewhere here in Ottawa on someone’s desk and were supposed to move at unimaginable speeds. Conservatives supported the Liberals in trying to move those forward. We just did not imagine that those unimaginable speeds would amount to nothing. My call to the Liberals is to get to work. Canadians are not asking for more promises. They are asking for real relief that they can actually feel in their wallets. They are working hard. They are making sacrifices and doing everything they can to provide for their families, yet too many are still falling further behind. A 10¢-per-litre reduction may provide some temporary relief, but Canadians deserve a government willing to address the broader affordability crisis and give families the certainty they need to get ahead. Conservatives will continue to fight to lower taxes, lower costs, more investment and an economy that works—”

• Echo ×3

  A repeated line

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

  Said 3 times by 3 members since September 22.

  Every time it was said →

“This bill is a small step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough. Conservatives want the government to completely end the carbon tax on fuel. We want the Liberals to listen to us and work with us.”

“Mr. Speaker, Conservatives have long called for the abolition of the carbon tax on fuel. That is nothing new. We are happy that the Prime Minister finally listened. In the last Parliament with the last Liberal government, which had a lot of the same faces around the cabinet table, the health minister actually said that Canadians were going to burn to death if they go on a summer road trip. He was quite animated in his feelings on this. This is a small, temporary measure that is a small step in the right direction. What Conservatives are saying is that it does not go far enough and to listen to us. We are trying to work with the government and do what is best for Canadians. All that is stopping the Liberals from doing it is to open their ears and listen.”

“Liberals do not understand that fuel taxes add up and make groceries and everyday items more expensive. I want my colleague to explain this again so they get it.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think what is being lost on the Liberal side is the compounding taxes that happen and how they translate to the consumer when they either go to the grocery store or buy everyday products. I would like my colleague to expand on that, because explaining it another time might help the Liberals understand.”

“I want this bill to pass. The Liberals only want to cut fuel taxes by 10 cents a litre, which saves a family about $250 a year. That is not enough. We need to cut 25 cents a litre instead, which would save a family about $1,000 a year.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who has been a fearless leader for the Canadian Armed Forces and Canadian Armed Forces families and a relentless champion of Canada’s Snowbirds. This is just it. It is not about the fact that the Liberals are removing 10¢ a litre. It is that Conservatives do not believe that 10¢ a litre is going to be enough to create the type of pressure relief that Canadian families need. I do not know if members opposite were in their ridings talking to people struggling over the summer. I was and I know my colleague was, and what we heard is that 10¢ a litre, which would equate to somewhere in the range of $250 for the average Canadian family for a year, is not going to make a difference, but 25¢ a litre, which is approximately $1,000 for an average family, would. It is simple.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →