“High fuel prices make food cost more, and that problem will not go away soon. I want the government to cancel the fuel tax for good instead of passing short-term pauses.”

“Mr. Speaker, it has been really heartening to hear today the recognition from the Liberal benches of the degree to which the excise tax impacts affordability. One of the things, though, that we have also heard is that, especially with the way the price of diesel is going, the impact on the price of food is going to continue to be felt. It is not going to be a short-term problem, yet the government is proposing a short-term solution. Therefore, I am wondering if the member can explain why the government has chosen to put itself in a position where it has to keep renewing this, and spending time in the House on it, when it is a problem that is clearly going to be a long-term problem. They could make this a long-term solution, cancel the tax and help, particularly food producers, with affordability by providing stability in that environment.”

“I support this bill, but it does not go far enough. Pausing only part of the fuel tax helps a little, but the government should remove all federal taxes on fuel. People in rural areas have to drive to work and school, and fuel taxes make everything more expensive, including groceries. The government should cut all fuel taxes permanently.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege and honour, as always, to rise on behalf of the people of Elgin County, St. Thomas and London, although, despite our absence from this chamber over the last few months, I note that not much has changed with the Liberals. They are still out of alignment with where the majority of Canadians are right now, which is finding that they cannot afford life in this country after 11 years of the Liberals. They are still unwilling to look in the mirror and recognize that they themselves are the problem and, therefore, not the solution. More importantly, they must be dragged kicking and screaming into doing the right thing. The bill they are coming forward with today is a step in the right direction, but only a step, and only a little nudge towards where we ultimately need to be. Back in April, when we were seeing the rising high gas prices in this country, Conservatives said we need to cut all of the federal taxes on fuel for Canadians to give them a break. The Liberals eventually came around, but they offered a fraction of the tax relief we were pushing for, for a fraction of the time. Even this proposed extension does not go nearly far enough when Canadians still cannot afford to fill up their fuel tanks. I will say that is especially clear in ridings such as mine where driving is a necessity and not a luxury. If someone is living in Vienna, Fingal or Port Stanley, Ontario, they have to drive to get around. Oftentimes, workers have to drive to get to work. Students have to drive to get to school. This is a reality. High fuel prices and high fuel taxes bear a disproportionate weight on rural Canadians, the people who the Liberals have often looked down upon and have not really acknowledged. We know this by looking at what the Liberals themselves have said about fuel taxes in the past. Now, interestingly enough, going back to April, when we originally called for this fuel tax cut, the bigger one, not the Liberal one, Liberals pooh-poohed it. They kind of brushed it off. The finance minister said, when we asked if they were going to cut the fuel taxes, “we will not take lessons from the Conservatives.” That was on Monday. On Tuesday, they took our policy. We have had other examples of this where people have risen in the House of Commons on the Conservative bench and asked the Liberal government when it was going to provide tax relief at the pumps for Canadians, and the Liberals said anything other than yes, because they fundamentally do not believe in it. We know this. For example, the member for Winnipeg North actually said that it was “far right” to oppose the Liberal carbon tax. Mark Holland, the former Liberal health minister, rose in this chamber and, believe it or not, said that if a family takes a road trip, they are letting “the planet burn” because they are filling up the tank to go on a nice, affordable family vacation. This is what we have heard from the Liberals, time and time again, about their true allegiance. They actually support fuel taxes because they do not want people to fuel up their cars. Steven Guilbeault, a former Liberal cabinet minister, said opposing the carbon tax is a plan “to let the planet burn. It is immoral.” This is what we get from these Liberals who, when it is politically to their advantage, decide to pretend that they are actually against the carbon tax and that they are actually against fuel taxes. A fuel tax is a tax on productivity. It is a tax on anything that needs to be shipped. It is a tax on groceries. It is a tax on transport. It is a tax on literally anything in a productive society, but when Liberals see taxes, they see opportunity. Funnily enough, going back to April, when we were calling on the Liberal government to cut fuel taxes, the Minister of Jobs and Families rose in the chamber and saw dollar signs. She said there was “a generational windfall.” Her response in question period to my colleague, the deputy leader of the Conservative Party, was that Liberals would spend the money better than Conservatives would. That is what the Liberals see. They see opportunities. They see Canadians as a cash cow, while Canadians see a life that is unaffordable and has only gotten less and less affordable under the Liberals. That is why we reiterate our call to eliminate all federal taxes on fuel. We think it should go until at least Canada Day, but I would personally say that we need to be looking at ways to get federal fuel taxes off entirely. This is a lever the government has at its disposal. It is a direct way to make life more affordable for Canadians and to ease the pressure, not just on rural Canadians, but on industry, students, single parents, seniors and anyone who needs fuel to live, either directly or indirectly. This is common sense. The Liberals have already come part of the way. Why do they not come the whole way? Why do they not actually take a stand for a real, concrete affordability measure that would support Canadians where they are right now? This is where I go back to my thesis from the beginning of my comments. The Liberals have to be dragged kicking and screaming into doing the right thing. This was true with the consumer carbon tax, and it is true with the federal fuel excise tax holiday. It will probably be true with the industrial carbon tax. At some point, they will come along with us because they realize the error of their ways, and they will pretend that they were with us the whole time. Ironically, gaslighting comes without a carbon tax when the Liberals do it. I do not know how they have managed to make that work, but why do they take so long? I do not know if it is that they had to see the polling. I do not know if it is that they were waiting to find out if it was politically to their advantage, but it is the right thing to do. It is interesting that all the deficit hawks somehow emerge from the Liberal benches when we start talking about the need to give Canadians a break on fuel. These folks are nowhere to be seen when the Prime Minister is posting $70-billion dollar deficits. They do not care about the deficit then. Just to pre-empt a potential question that may come from one of my colleagues opposite, this is because of heightened fuel prices due to things that are matters outside the government’s control. No one is claiming the government is responsible for some of the global factors, but it is responsible for taxes. This is because of a sudden surge in prices, which means that the fuel tax revenue the government is going to get was never actually budgeted for. Unless the government’s previous budget was based around this war, which I do not think it was, the government never foresaw the increase in fuel revenue, so it is not actually hurting the government coffers, of which there is a lot that needs to be trimmed, but that is a topic for another day. This measure would not actually hurt the government coffers, but not doing it is hurting Canadians. Not doing it is putting pressure and strain on families who already cannot withstand it. I mentioned earlier today in the House a story that was actually very difficult for me to hear. It was not as difficult as it was for the people sharing it. A group of seniors I met with spoke about the fact that they are literally skipping meals because of food affordability problems, and ever since I posted that clip on social media, I have had other people reach out to share very similar things, heartbreaking things. They are the human faces that go along with the stats we have seen about the millions and millions of Canadians who are now using food banks, who have never before had to. People who are employed, people who have jobs and careers, are finding that that is not enough to survive in Canada after 11 years of the Liberals, who do not put affordability front and centre, who are not devoted to saving Canadians money, who are not putting forward a concrete plan to save Canadian jobs and who are following their Prime Minister, the very model of all talk and no results. The results are that the Liberals have to put forward this bill because they have failed Canadians. The Liberals have to put forward this bill because Canadians cannot afford the price at the fuel pumps after the Liberals have driven up the cost of absolutely everything. We are the party that is fighting for Canadians. We are the party that is fighting for Canada. We are the party that is going to make sure that fuel taxes are not driving more people into untenable situations with household finances that are sending them to the food bank. It is a sad reality that most people would never have thought possible in a G7 country, that food bank stats would become the norm. We are not even surprised. The Liberals smirk and chuckle when we raise them because it is just window dressing to them, but we will continue to stand up for that. I want to say to the Liberals now that I would be happy to support any measure that saves working Canadians money, but I want to know, if they are going to take our policy on this, why they are not taking the whole thing. They should get rid of the federal fuel taxes once and for all, not just for a few months, but in a way that is meaningful in the long term. If it is right for Canadians now, it is right for Canadians always.”

“We should remove this fuel tax permanently, not temporarily. Having to debate and renew this pause every few months wastes time that we could spend fixing other problems.”

“Mr. Speaker, I was really struck by my colleague’s remarks, particularly his remarks near the end of his speech about how, if it is right for Canadians now, then why would the Liberals not go the whole way and take the tax off permanently? The reason that resonated with me so much is that there is a cost to uncertainty. We are here in the House renewing this exemption, and it has been admitted today that we may be doing it again and again. With there being so much to accomplish in the House, I am wondering if my colleague would expand a bit on his remarks and talk about some of the other things we could do for Canadians if we did not have to come back to spend a day on this topic every three months.”

“Businesses cannot plan ahead when fuel taxes keep changing. The government needs to give Canadians real, permanent relief instead of small, temporary fixes.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith has been doing tremendous work on the affordability file, and it is an honour to be sitting near her once again in my new seat in the chamber. Stability is absolutely important. I have already heard from businesses that have dealt with the lack of ability by the Liberals and the Prime Minister to get a deal that will protect Canadian jobs. They are already having trouble planning ahead with not knowing what tariffs and countertariffs are going to be in front of them. Fuel costs are another great example of this. They do not know how to possibly budget for something when the Liberal government is trying to provide this incremental approach without dealing with the totality of the problem. What I said in my initial remarks holds true here. Governments need to use every lever available to them to protect affordability for Canadians. The government is only pushing that lever just a bit and not telling Canadians what they can expect in the future.”

“The member from Winnipeg North used to attack us for opposing the carbon tax. Now the Liberals want credit for cutting fuel taxes. They have no credibility. The Liberals should support our position so Canadians can get a tax break.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am a student of history, and I have really venerated this chamber. I have a great deal of respect for the loquaciousness of my colleague from Winnipeg North. For example, in December 2023, he said that anyone who opposed the carbon tax was “far right”. In February 2024, he said Conservatives were “climate deniers” for opposing the carbon tax, and later on that same day, he said opposing the carbon tax meant we wanted to let her rip. I do not know what he meant by “let her rip”, but I think he was catastrophizing about something that the Liberals are now claiming credit for. They have no credibility on this issue whatsoever. The sooner they come around to our position, the sooner Canadians will get the break they deserve.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 0 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The Prime Minister says he supports pipelines in Alberta, but he opposes them in British Columbia. His party is split on the issue. He does not get anything done because taking action would force him to pick a side.”

“Mr. Speaker, whatever our policy disagreements, I know that my colleague is tremendously consistent and clear in her position, which, as she alludes to, is more than can be said for the Liberals. The Prime Minister is for pipelines in Alberta and is against them in British Columbia. He has people in his caucus who are very much against pipelines and others who claim they have turned over a new leaf. Sooner or later, Canadians are going to wonder where the results are. The reason the Prime Minister is all talk and no results is that delivering results will mean having to pick a side on these contradictory positions. I am glad there is some moral clarity on this issue from one side of the aisle. We are certainly not getting it from the Liberals.”

“I want the member to answer my question. This bill cuts the fuel tax. How does collecting less tax pay for all the government programs and help for businesses that she claims it does?”

“Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member opposite’s comments. I am sure she read the bill, as it is only a few lines long. She said that it would help all these different programs across government and supply all these things, yet when we look at what it would do, it would just not take more tax from Canadians. Can the member opposite tell me how not taking more tax would actually support building more businesses, help people get back to work and support all the social programs she mentioned? I cannot quite follow the logic when we have all this extra spending, yet we are just taking less tax and are helping people not spend as much at the pumps.”

“The government admits that high fuel prices hurt people and that the problem is not going away. I want to know why they are only offering short-term relief instead of a permanent fix.”

“Mr. Speaker, as I have said a few times today, it is heartening to hear my colleagues across the aisle recognize that diesel and gas prices have an impact on affordability. It is good of them to recognize that their constituents are calling for this kind of relief. I wonder why they are again resorting to short-term measures. They have acknowledged that this is a conflict that is not going away, that has an impact. They have acknowledged the need to work on the things they can control. Why stop here?”

“I support cutting the fuel tax because high fuel prices make food more expensive. Food has to travel far in Canada, and diesel prices are up 75% this year. I want the government to make this tax cut last for years instead of just a few months so businesses can plan.”

“Mr. Speaker, like lasagna or moussaka, food prices are built in layers. Four cents of excise tax sits on top of a freight surcharge, which is layered on top of additional labelling requirements, new packaging restrictions and the cost of fertilizer, refrigeration, shipping, tariffs and taxes. No single cost explains the whole grocery bill, but the grocery bill comes at the end of a long conveyor belt, and every additional cost placed on that belt eventually moves toward the consumer. At a time of record food bank use, when those of us who shop animatedly compare prices with each other in disbelief, when people are skipping meals to save money, we owe it to Canadians to ask what every decision we make in this place means for the cost of food. When the Prime Minister claims, as he did in this chamber on March 25, that “Affordability is the best it has been in over a decade”, it is clear to me that he has not been to the grocery store. Food prices are now 29% higher than they were five years ago, while they rose only 9% over the previous five years. If we feel like food inflation has accelerated, that is because it has. Bill C-38 is a very short bill that would do three things. It would extend the fuel tax holiday on gasoline, avgas and diesel until January 31, 2027; it would bring back half the normal rate from February 1 to March 31; and then it would restore the full tax on April 1, 2027. I support this relief, but I think it should not be fleeting. The cycle of providing temporary relief, panicking at the expiry date and extending it for a few more months leaves too many businesses wondering what will happen next. Diesel prices are already extraordinarily volatile. Statistics Canada reported on September 17 that producer prices for diesel rose 9.6% in August alone and were 75% higher than a year ago. These are enormous movements in the price of an essential business input. Now, Ottawa cannot set the world price of oil. Parliament cannot legislate peace in the Middle East or guarantee the price of a barrel of crude next spring, but when the market is unstable, there is an even greater responsibility for government to provide stability in the things that it does control. Nowhere is that more important than in food. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada estimates that transportation accounts for seven cents of every dollar Canadians spend on domestically produced food. The comparable figure in the United States is less than five cents. This is because Canada has longer distances, a more dispersed population and a climate that requires us to move food enormous distances, particularly through the winter. Fuel prices, therefore, have a direct relationship with the cost of feeding our country. We see this in my home communities on Vancouver Island. Out here, people speak of planes, trains and automobiles, while in B.C., we also have seaplanes, helicopters and ferries to contend with. Much of our food arrives after travelling by truck, rail, ship or some combination of the three. There is always another transportation leg before it reaches a grocery store in Nanaimo, Ladysmith or Gabriola. The cost of diesel, therefore, enters our food system long before the produce truck arrives at the grocery store loading dock. Farmers use diesel to fuel their equipment during planting and harvest. Ingredients travel to processors. Packaging has to be manufactured and delivered. Warehouses consume energy. Refrigerated warehouses consume even more energy. Finished products travel to distribution centres, grocery stores, restaurants and institutions. I am chairing a national food affordability task force, and I heard about the cost of diesel at every farm, every processor and every grocer I visited this summer. High diesel costs have a cascading effect across the supply chain, and uncertainty amplifies that effect. The Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University has found that diesel and grocery prices have moved remarkably closely together over the last 30 years. That does not mean diesel alone determines the price of food, but it confirms what anyone involved in the food supply chain already knows, which is that energy and transportation costs, that is, gasoline, aviation gasoline and diesel, are deeply connected to what Canadians eventually pay at the grocery store. The Dalhousie lab has modelled what the present diesel shock could mean. If high prices persist through the winter, grocery inflation could peak between one-half and seven-tenths of a percentage point higher. A shorter-lived spike could produce an effect closer to three-tenths or four-tenths of a point. Either way, it is going to cost us. The Dalhousie analysis works the diesel and other cost shocks through contracts, inventories and the supply chain over many months and provides a solid basis for believing, as many members have said today when answering questions and in their remarks, that the government will need to extend this measure again and, very possibly, again. We spend enormous effort in this place debating grocery prices after they have risen. We need to start thinking about affordability problems before they show up at the checkout because uncertainty and volatility have a price. Businesses protect themselves against it through shorter contracts, larger contingencies, higher working capital requirements or delayed investment. Smaller businesses generally have fewer ways to hedge their exposure and less balance sheet capacity to absorb a sudden change. Dalhousie’s agri-food lab has highlighted precisely that vulnerability among smaller processors and independent distributors as one of the many explanations for why we are experiencing food inflation. As well, there is a broader principle here that does not depend on agreement about the ultimate tax rate. If the policy objective is to hold this tax at zero while energy markets remain severely disrupted, then why do we not give businesses a horizon measured in years rather than in weeks or months? Our food costs would really benefit from that. A government faced with volatile markets should be trying to reduce uncertainty, not add another layer to it. The Prime Minister talks a lot about the things we can control. Well, government taxation is one of those things. Not every increase in food prices has the same cause, and government cannot control all of them, but where government itself is adding cost or uncertainty, we have an obligation and an opportunity to act. Agriculture and food businesses experience individual departmental policy decisions cumulatively. That means they pay the transportation cost, the packaging cost, the tariff, the regulatory cost, the energy cost and the tax at the same time. Each department may conclude that its individual measure may have a modest effect, but grocery costs do not stay nicely in departmental silos, and the cost of the whole is sometimes more than its parts. The final price reflects the entire supply chain and all of the policy changes along the way. Canada will always be a country in which food travels considerable distances. Diesel and avgas are critical inputs. Temporary relief can buy time. We should use that time. Four cents a litre is only one layer in the price of food, but it is a layer entirely within Parliament’s control. When diesel prices are already up 75% in a year, we should be looking for layers we can take off, not deciding when to put them back on. I support the relief contained in Bill C-38. I would like us to go further, however, and provide the long-term certainty that lets businesses plan.”

“We are extending this fuel tax break because Conservatives pushed for it again and again. We keep speaking up for people in our communities who cannot afford high costs.”

“Mr. Speaker, I feel as though I should buy a lottery ticket. Thank you for those kind words, and thank you for the recognition that we are here today extending this relief to Canadians because Conservatives have pushed this point over and over again. It is because we continue to bring up affordability, we continue to focus on the people we serve in our communities and we continue to bring their stories to the House over and over again. I would say that it is wonderful to work together, but I would like to see you paying—”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 0 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 →