“Our government is helping with food costs through our school food program. It feeds hundreds of thousands of children across Canada. The Conservatives want to cancel it. I want to know if the member thinks her party should change its mind and support it.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member said the core of the motion today is, in essence, about people and the issue of affordability, and I believe she used the term “cost of food”. It made me flash back to the number of things the government is doing, including the tax levy exemption. The other thing that came to my mind was the national school food program. It delivers food to hundreds of thousands of children in every region of our country, yet the Conservative Party has determined that it is a garbage program and it is going to get rid of it. I wonder if the member believes the Conservative Party should flip-flop on that position and support the national school food program.”

“Our government has created many programs to help people afford life, like dental care, school food, and tax cuts. I want the Conservatives to tell Canadians which of these programs they actually support.”

“Mr. Speaker, a Conservative member asked a question about the federal government playing the blame game, which is just not true. Let me pose it in a different way. Can the Conservatives explain to Canadians, on the issue of affordability, what they actually support among the multitude of programs the federal government has put in place? Is it the tax break for 22 million Canadians, the groceries benefit program for Canadians, the dental program, pharmacare, the national school food program for children, or the tax break we are giving them—”

“I do not support the opposition's motion. World events are driving up prices, but our government is helping right now. We suspended the federal fuel tax to lower gas prices, cut income taxes, and created a national school lunch program. We are giving families real help today, while the opposition only offers slogans.”

“Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Mississauga—Lakeshore. I am grateful for this opportunity to talk about the official opposition’s motion, which addresses the reality of the cost of living. High prices are a daily reality in my riding of Bourassa and in many Montreal neighbourhoods. In Montreal North, families are counting every dollar at the grocery store every day. Workers are wondering whether they will be able to fill up their tank before their next paycheque. Retailers are absorbing price increases they never chose. These people do not want slogans like the ones we are hearing from the opposition. They want initiatives and results. We live in an unstable world. Wars on the other side of the world, trade tensions and weakened supply chains have impacts that trickle down to our kitchens and gas pumps. Canada did not trigger these crises, but it has a duty to respond, and our government is responding. We chose to act here and now. We chose to take action with Bill C‑38. Bill C-38, the Canadian fuel affordability act, extends the suspension of the federal excise tax on gasoline, diesel and aviation fuel until January 31, 2027. Zero, not a penny, as we say back home in Quebec. This suspension has been in effect since April 20. Members opposite surely remember that. From day one, the price at the pump fell by an average of 11¢ a litre. In practical terms, that means savings of about $5 on a 50-litre fill-up. We are doing this responsibly. We are doing it, of course, because we are thinking about Canadian families. The tax will be gradually reintroduced in February and March 2027 at half the regular rate: five cents per litre for gasoline and two cents for diesel. There will be no shock and no surprises. The impact goes far beyond the family vehicle. From truck drivers and farmers to delivery companies and grocery stores, the entire supply chain that feeds the country will benefit. Yes, diesel prices have risen around the world, but let us set the record straight and correct a few points that have been raised by the other side of the House. Diesel costs less in Canada than in most G7 countries. Since the end of February, prices have increased less here than in the United States, and the provincial diesel taxes, which range from roughly nine cents to more than 20¢ per litre, are not necessarily up to Ottawa. Let us talk about affordability. That has to do with more than just the price per litre. The opposition wants to talk about fuel, so let us talk about it, but affordability is not just about fuel. It does not come down to just the price per litre. It is measured in a number of ways. I will quickly list them off and go through them in more detail afterward. Affordability also comes down to groceries, home ownership, pay and our children’s lunch boxes. It is also measured in equity. Let us talk about groceries. The new Canada groceries and essentials benefit provides 25% more than the old GST credit. It is tax-free, and it benefits more than 12 million low- and modest-income Canadians. A payment is coming up this week. With this summer’s supplement, a family of four will receive up to $1,890 this year and about $1,400 a year for the next four years. The amount for a single person is $950 this year and about $700 for the next four years. Affordability is measured in home ownership. For first-time homebuyers, there is no GST on homes up to $1 million, and it is reduced for homes between $1 million and $1.5 million. That means up to $50,000 in the pockets of our young dreamers who really want to make their dream of owning a home and getting on the property ladder a reality. It is also measured in terms of pay, as I said earlier. We cut the tax rate for the first bracket of personal income from 15% to 14%. This has benefited 22 million Canadians. It puts $420 per year per person in their pockets, or $840 for a dual-income household. It is reflected in a child’s lunch box. Allow me to make a quick aside: It is a shame to hear people on the other side of the House say that this measure, which helps many young people and schoolchildren, is garbage. Canada’s national school food program, which is now permanent, provides meals for approximately 400,000 children each year. It saves a family with two children nearly $800 a year on groceries. It is also measured by our work and actions in the area of equity. Thanks to the automation of federal benefits, 5.5 million low-income Canadians will automatically receive the support to which they are entitled, such as the Canada groceries and essentials benefit and the Canada child benefit. A benefit that is not claimed because of a lack of information is, unfortunately, a benefit that is lost. In closing, we have no control over the global forces driving up prices, but we do have control over the measures we must put in place here and now and over our government’s initiatives, which must be just, fair, sincere, and, above all, responsible. This responsibility aspect is exactly I am so uncomfortable with the motion that has been introduced by the party across the way. Our response is to take meaningful, measured action and, as I just said, to act responsibly. The opposition is proposing long-term solutions to a problem we are facing today. We are delivering results today while building a stronger economy for tomorrow. Making life affordable and strengthening our economy is not a choice between two goals. It is a single, unified commitment to families in Bourassa and across the country.”

• 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 →

“I want to pass this bill. It does not interfere with Quebec's powers or its carbon market, and we are not giving up on our environmental promises.”

“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his eloquence, but I would like to stay on topic. So as not to mislead anyone, it is very important to note that Bill C-38 does not affect Quebec’s jurisdictions or its carbon market. It does not affect any portfolio. It is also important to point out that our government is not reneging on its environmental commitments; far from it.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 48 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“This gas tax cut will help Canadians, but it is only one part of our plan to lower costs. I want the member to talk more about how these kinds of measures help people and grow our economy.”

“Madam Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague can provide some additional thoughts in regard to the larger issue of affordability. The gas tax levy break that is being provided to Canadians is significant. It will help out greatly. However, it is part of a broader package, as the government understands the issue of affordability and is doing what it can by bringing in a number of different measures. I wonder if the member can provide his thoughts on how important it is, as we continue to try to grow the economy and make a stronger and healthier economy overall, that we address the issue of affordability by having the types of measures we have brought in.”

“We need a strong economy that can handle hard times. Lowering gas prices is good, but we are doing more. We are helping people buy food, own homes, earn better pay, and get school meals for 400,000 kids.”

“Madam Speaker, first of all, I thank my colleague for the question. I think it is relevant because the watchword here is resilience. We need a resilient economy. A resilient economy must have clear, concrete solutions that go beyond today’s topic. As I mentioned earlier, beyond the affordability of gas prices, we have put measures in place to help with groceries, to support access to home ownership, to address pay, to help 400,000 young people with school meals, and, of course, to promote equity and access to information regarding government assistance. With these actions, we are building a resilient, balanced and, above all, responsible economy.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 44 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“We are helping people right now. Gas prices dropped by 11 cents a litre right away, which helps families and small businesses save money. The opposition's ideas are not measurable and are not responsible.”

“Madam Speaker, I noted several points, but the most important one was when she asked for measures to be taken now. That is just what we are doing: taking measures now. Prices fell by 11¢ per litre on day one. That is for the mom who wants to fill up her car. That really makes a big difference to her wallet. That is for someone who uses their car for their company, for their own small or medium-sized business. That has a real impact here and now. What the members on the other side of the House are asking for is not measurable in terms of the impact it can have on taxpayers, and, above all, it is not responsible. With that, I will say it again: We are going to have an economy that is resilient but, above all, responsible.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a comment in debate

  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 analysis →

“High diesel prices hurt farmers, truckers, and families, but Canada cannot control global oil markets or world events. Our government gave immediate help by pausing the fuel tax, and we are fixing pipelines and transport systems to move fuel better. Building new refineries takes years and will not lower prices today, so we need to focus on both quick tax relief and long-term energy projects.”

“Madam Speaker, the recent surge in diesel prices has indeed created real challenges for Canadians. Farmers bringing in this year’s harvest are facing higher costs. Trucking companies moving goods across the country are facing higher costs. Businesses that rely on diesel power and equipment are also facing higher costs. When transportation costs rise, Canadians often see those costs reflected in the prices they pay for food and everyday goods. Diesel prices matter to Canadians. They affect household budgets, businesses, farmers and industries across the country. Understanding what is driving those prices is essential if we want to identify solutions that can make a meaningful difference. That is because we oftentimes misunderstand the problem, and if we do, we end up chasing the wrong solutions. One of the challenges in this debate is that many different factors affect the price of diesel. Some of those factors are within Canada’s influence and others are not. A responsible energy policy begins by understanding the difference. Let us begin with what Canadians can influence. Governments can act to provide relief when Canadians are facing higher costs. That is exactly what the government did. Earlier this year, the Government of Canada temporarily suspended the federal fuel excise tax on diesel and gasoline. When global pressures persisted, the government extended that relief. That support is expected to provide billions of dollars in relief to Canadians. Members opposite may argue that the relief should go further, and that is a legitimate debate. One of the central proposals in today’s motion is tax relief on diesel. On that point, the government has already acted, but the discussion cannot stop there. That is why the government is collaborating with industry, provinces and territories to identify opportunities for Canada to strengthen the resilience of its fuel system, including for transportation networks, storage capacity and other types of infrastructure. By working in lockstep with provinces and territories, we can create the conditions to attract investment in the critical energy systems and infrastructure Canadians rely upon every day. Fuel security is not determined solely by how much fuel is produced. It also depends on whether that fuel can reach the communities, farms and businesses that depend upon it. That requires ensuring that pipelines, rail, storage, and strong distribution networks are always in place to ensure access to the energy that Canadians need. This motion recognizes that fuel security is about more than refining capacity alone. The debate is about how best to strengthen those systems and how quickly Canadians can expect to see results. Now let us consider what Canada cannot control. Canada does not set the global price of crude oil. Canada does not determine global refinery margins. Canada does not control international diesel shortages. Canada does not control wars and geopolitical instability, nor disruptions affecting energy markets around the world. In fact, G7 leaders met virtually on Friday because these challenges are affecting countries around the world, not just Canada, and they agreed to coordinate the release of strategic fuel reserves and diesel in response to pressures affecting global fuel markets. That is a reminder that many of the forces affecting diesel prices extend well beyond the reach of any single government. All of those events can affect the price that Canadians pay. Of course, recognizing that reality is not an excuse. It is simply an acknowledgement of the facts. The fact is that no federal government, regardless of political stripe, can legislate away global energy price volatility. No government can pass a motion in the House of Commons and eliminate geopolitical risk, and no government can guarantee that international supply disruptions will never occur again. What governments can do is strengthen resilience, reduce vulnerabilities and help Canadians weather disruptions when they occur. That is exactly what the government is focused on doing. One aspect of today’s motion deserves particular attention. The motion proposes expanding diesel production and building additional fuel infrastructure, including refining capacity, transport networks, and storage. I agree. The government agrees that adequate refining capacity remains important to Canada’s long-term energy security. However, it is important to note that Canada already produces more diesel than it consumes. The challenge is not simply how much fuel Canada produces but also ensuring that fuel can move relatively easily and reliably through the systems Canadians depend upon. If market demand supports additional refining capacity, our government should carefully consider proposals to expand its production, but Canadians also deserve a realistic discussion about what refining capacity can and cannot accomplish. A new refinery cannot be planned, financed, approved and constructed in a matter of months. Projects of that scale take years. Even under optimistic assumptions, they cannot address the affordability challenges Canadians are facing right now. That does not make them unimportant. It simply means they solve a different problem. They are not primarily about lowering diesel prices this month. They are about making Canada more resilient in the future. Diesel prices are ultimately linked to North American and global fuel markets, so simply adding refining capacity in Canada would not necessarily translate into significantly lower prices for Canadian consumers. A responsible energy strategy requires both immediate action and long-term planning, not one or the other, and that is exactly the approach the government is taking. First, the government provided relief that Canadians can feel today. Second, it is strengthening the system that will help Canada respond to future disruptions tomorrow. That broader work is already under way. Global instability and associated volatility in diesel prices reinforces the importance of strengthening resilience of our energy systems. Canada already produces significant amounts of energy, but we should also be looking for ways to move that energy more efficiently across the country. That is why the government has focused on strengthening transportation networks and improving market reliance. Recent approvals, including the Wolf Midstream project, the Sunrise expansion project and the Taylor to Gordondale project, will strengthen the infrastructure that moves energy and fuels where Canadians need them most. The Pacific link is another recent example of that work. The Government of Canada recently designated the project as one of national interests under the Building Canada Act. It has the potential to strengthen Canada’s energy security and diversify our export opportunities. A resilient country is a better-prepared country. A better-prepared country with energy security is about more than any single project and about more than any single type of fuel. Canada’s energy security depends on having reliable conventional fuels, strong transportation networks, adequate storage and, increasingly, abundant clean fuels and clean energy. These are not competing objectives; they strengthen one another. Reliable diesel remains essential for farmers, truckers, construction workers, mining operations and countless businesses across the country, but Canada’s energy security is also strengthened when we produce more reliable alternatives to diesel, such as more clean fuels such as renewable diesel and biodiesel. More supply makes energy systems more resilient, and more options make it more reliable. That is why the Government of Canada has also supported the growth of Canada’s biofuel sector. The goal is to strengthen Canada’s domestic production of renewable alternatives to protect Canadians, to build energy security and to add fuel to the market. They complement conventional fuels rather than replace them. More fuel supply strengthens market resilience and reduces pressure on prices. Energy security is strengthened when Canada produces more energy of all kinds. That means more conventional security, more conventional energy, more clean fuels, more clean energy and more resilience. That is how any country can be prepared for uncertainty. Canadians need relief today. They also need confidence in the future. That means taking action where governments can make a difference and strengthening Canada’s energy security over the long term. Our government is doing both. That is the approach Canadians deserve and the approach we will continue to pursue.”

“Canada can produce oil and gas while also developing clean energy. We have the resources, and the world wants them. Our country's success depends on selling fuel, energy, and minerals, and we will keep doing that while building clean alternatives.”

“Madam Speaker, the question is whether we can do both. Can we walk and chew gum? We need to do both. The fact is that we need to provide clean alternatives within the system as we proceed. There is a demand. We have the resources. Canada’s prosperity is dependent upon its ability to provide some of our critical minerals, including fuel and energy from the tar sands. We are already a huge producer of energy around the world. We will continue to be, and we will continue to provide alternates, including clean energy alternatives.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The world still needs our energy resources, and Canada is a trusted partner to provide them. We must look at new forms of energy for the future, but we can develop our resources and protect the environment at the same time.”

“Madam Speaker, I appreciate the fact that we are asking questions. We should always ask questions, and the government should be held accountable to the investments it is making for the future benefit of Canadians. I will argue, though, that demand does exist. The prosperity and legacy of that demand over a longer period of time of time may dwindle, which is all the more reason we have to look at alternative forms of energy, but Canada has what the world wants. We have heard that many times. The world needs Canada to be at the table to provide some of the resources and trust. Canada is a trusted partner in these endeavours. We are trusted to provide environmental protection as we proceed. We can continue doing both, and we will.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →
• Echo ×4

  A repeated line

  “Canada has what the world wants.”

  Said 4 times by 4 members since June 18.

  Every time it was said →

“Our bill gives people quick help through a tax cut, but we also need major energy projects for the future. I want my colleague to explain why we need both short-term help and long-term plans for our natural resources.”

“Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on the point of short-term and long-term relief. The short-term relief is in Bill C-38, providing the tax break. In the long term, looking at the major projects and recent announcements about Pacific link and LNG phase two, we see that there are projects that can help us into the future. I am wondering if my colleague can provide his thoughts on why it is important for us to have a balance of both short-term and long-term thinking when it comes to the issue of our natural resources.”