“The Prime Minister wants to move Canada closer to the European Union and use problems in the United States as an excuse. Meeting with China is just a way to anger Donald Trump. It will hurt our relationship with the United States and make things harder to fix later.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister’s intent all along was to move toward the EU and join it as much as possible. He has been presented a perfect opportunity with all the tantrums going on south of the border. The meeting with the Chinese is quite likely another red flag, a gratuitous red flag, to throw in front of Mr. Trump, who will hit the ceiling as usual, further making it difficult for the next American administration to repair the damage that he has done. Mr. Carney is making it almost impossible for the next administration—”

• Off topic
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

  See full analysis →
• 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 →

“This bill does not do enough. If cutting the fuel tax is good now, it should stay cut instead of coming back next year.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would not categorize the government’s work as amazing. I would categorize it as a half measure destined to become even less soon. If it is good to reduce or stop the excise tax now, why in the world would it be a bad idea next year?”

“I support this bill because the Liberals did not pack it with other things.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is because this time the Liberals have not shoved all sorts of other things into the bill to make it unpassable.”

“This bill does not go far enough. I want the government to remove all federal taxes on gas and diesel until at least July 2027 instead of just pausing this one tax for a short time. Fuel taxes make everything more expensive, and they hurt farmers especially hard during the harvest.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House to speak on behalf of the people of Bow River. I spent my summer, like most of us, back in the riding. It was such a joy visiting with my neighbours, visiting with colleagues and experiencing the world of agriculture: being on the farm, being on a tractor and watching the combine start up in the fall. It is a time of life and a time of the season that brings everything home. That is payday for so many farmers and so many people in my riding. The potato harvest is under way, and there are some challenges, and the sugar beets have yet to start, but this is the time of year when the bills get paid. This is also the time of the year when costs are incurred. Before I start discussing the specific measures in Bill C-38, I would like to begin by briefly describing the sheer absurdity that has characterized the Liberal government’s use of carbon taxes. I have heard from constituent after constituent about how the affordability challenges of the last decade have become an affordability crisis. The rising costs of necessities like food and housing have pushed families into a constant struggle to make ends meet. A Conservative solution to bring down the cost of living has always been on the table: Stop taxing every aspect of life. The most notorious of taxes during the last several years was the consumer carbon tax, a tax on all kinds of fuel. Canadians despise this tax, especially the residents of ridings like mine, who need affordable fuels to get around, to move goods, to do their jobs and to simply live their lives. This tax extracted money callously from producers, processors, manufacturers and the average Canadian consumer. Conservatives called over and over again to get rid of this costly tax. The pleas of Canadians who were looking for relief were only denied, dismissed and derided by the Liberal government. Let us not forget that during this time, the current Prime Minister acted as a key economic adviser to Trudeau. We were told constantly that this tax was effective, that the struggles of Canadians to pay for basic needs were worth it in the end and that anyone claiming otherwise just did not understand how great the carbon tax was. What happened as soon as the 2025 election rolled around? The Liberals had the most miraculous change of heart toward the consumer carbon tax. Seemingly overnight, the entire front bench flipped sides on the destructive policy they were so intent on keeping alive just days or weeks before. The overwhelmingly clear conclusion from this blatant flip-flop is that nowhere in the adjustment of carbon taxes is there any sincerity to improve affordability for Canadians. These changes spring up to act as a cheap gimmick when the government thinks the time is right or to counter the relentless pressure it feels from the common-sense Conservatives. The green fallacy of the Liberal caucus is starting to crumble. All of that context brings us to the subject of the discussion today, which is the extension of the federal fuel excise tax suspension until early next year. Clearly, the end of the consumer carbon tax after years of Conservative pressure did not constitute the ending of taxing fuels. The industrial carbon tax, the clean fuel regulations and the fuel excise tax were all ready to fill the hole left after the consumer carbon tax was repealed. The effects are just the same. The costs of these taxes permeate through our economy and continue to increase the price of essentials for all Canadians. Our trucking, agriculture, fishing, forestry, housing, construction and delivery sectors are hit the hardest by these costs, but every household bears the ultimate burden. Compound taxation occurs every time energy is needed in the economy. At each of the seven to 15 times auto parts cross the Gordie Howe bridge, costs compound for businesses. Every time food moves from planting to harvesting to processing to the warehouse to retail and finally to the trip home to get to the family’s kitchen, tax costs are compounding for families. Putting this in terms that anyone driving through Bow River this month can see with their own eyes, it is harvest. Right now, combines are running from the moment the dew burns off until well past dark. A modern combine burns 60 to 80 litres of diesel every hour it runs. On a 12-hour harvest day, that is about 800 litres for one machine on one farm on one day. That is before we count the grain trucks hauling to the bins, the tractor pulling the grain cart or the dryer running through the night. There are an estimated 50,000 combines working across western Canada. If each one runs about 300 hours this harvest threshing, that is more than one billion litres of diesel burned just to bring in this year’s crop. That means every cent of the federal tax on a litre of diesel will cost western farmers more than $10 million this harvest. The federal excise tax alone takes more than $40 million. The 25¢ a litre in fuel taxes that the Conservatives are calling on to remove is more than a quarter of a billion dollars out of farm families’ pockets in one harvest just from combines. Conservatives spent months fighting the fuel excise tax to win Canadians more savings as the cost of everything is rising. The finance minister, after an agonizingly long delay, finally announced the half measure of temporarily delaying the Liberal gas tax hike planned after Labour Day. After even more months of Conservative pressure, the Liberals are now offering an extension to this delay. My constituents would like to know why the government keeps putting up such a tremendous fight against bringing Canadians long-term relief from this tax. If the Liberals are now admitting that fuel taxes matter and that affordability depends on this critical necessity being cheap, then why can they not commit to permanently reducing the cost of fuel for everyone? It seems almost like the Liberals get a kick out of constantly keeping Canadians on the edge of whether or not this tax will be suspended or renamed. Keep in mind that energy poverty leads to real poverty, and our economy writ large is in crisis. I was listening earlier to members from the government talk about this bill as a great measure for Canadians. One of them described it as an example of the Prime Minister’s “commitment to affordability”. A temporary suspension of the fuel tax is not a commitment. It is another Liberal half measure getting rolled out after months of Conservative pressure. At a time when citizens need real relief from the Liberal-created affordability crisis, Conservatives are calling for the government to remove all federal taxes on gas and diesel until at least Canada Day 2027. Gas prices have skyrocketed nearly 26%. The measure would save Canadians up to 25¢ a litre and would bring as much as $1,000 in savings for the average Canadian family. This is not a small or negligible sum. When Canadians are facing an unprecedented cost of living, where many are $200 away from not being able to balance their chequebook at the end of the month, all savings matter. Of course, it is more than just Conservatives who are demanding a permanent change. Polling shows that 63% of Canadians oppose the federal government from bringing back the fuel excise tax, and that includes 43% who strongly oppose it. When this many Canadians are against a fuel tax hike, the government has more than enough support to follow the Conservative plan to bring down the cost of fuel. I want to quickly return to my neighbours. A family running two combines on a grain operation near Tabor will burn roughly 40,000 litres of diesel this fall on the two machines alone. At 25¢ a litre in federal fuel taxes, that is more than $10,000 on one harvest. That is $10,000 that is not going to new tires for the grain truck, not going to school clothes for the kids, not going to paying down the operating line that carries the whole year’s risk and not circulating through the community. Farmers cannot pass that cost on. They do not set the price of wheat or canola. They take what the market gives them, and every extra dollar at the pump comes straight out of the family’s bottom line. The federal excise tax alone will make about $1,700 from one family this harvest. Every week that the government drags its feet on that tax, it is families in Bow River who will pay for it. Canadians everywhere are feeling the pain of filling up their gas tanks. The best the Liberal government can do is offer a temporary suspension of their gas tax. That is not good enough. If the Prime Minister is serious about a commitment to affordability, then this is a great opportunity to demonstrate his commitment by permanently removing the tax. When the Prime Minister talks about his commitment to affordability, I would invite him to come to Bow River and stand in the field this October at 10 o’clock at night while a farmer and his son are running because the forecast calls for rain. He should ask the family what a temporary half-measure tax suspension means to them. They will say they need certainty and need to know what the cost of fuel will be. In conclusion, Conservatives are not asking for anything complicated. We are asking for the common-sense elimination of this and other fuel taxes instead of an insincere half measure. Canadians are looking for real relief, and a temporary measure will not cut it. I hope the government will be able to get on board with this demand as it addresses this important matter.”

• Echo ×4

  A repeated line

  “Conservatives are calling for all federal taxes on gas and diesel to be removed until at least Canada Day 2027.”

  Said 4 times by 4 members since September 22.

  Every time it was said →

“People in my riding do not believe the Prime Minister is helping make life more affordable. He has shaped the Liberal government's bad economic policies for years.”

“Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting question from the member across the way. By and large, the constituents in my riding do not think that the current Prime Minister is really helping them with affordability. They look at the history of the Liberal government over the past 11-plus years, and they see typical, standard Liberal dogma driving the narrative. This is not good. The current Prime Minister was the trusted adviser and the whisperer into the ear of the previous prime minister, and his fingerprints are all over the economic policy from the last Parliament.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The previous Conservative government had great policies, like signing trade deals and building pipelines. If the Liberals continue to copy our ideas, we will support them.”

“Mr. Speaker, I know that the 10 years that Stephen Harper was the prime minister of this country are finally looked back on as a golden age in Canada, and I know that the Liberals have been taking our good ideas and running with them. Perhaps the Prime Minister will continue that legacy of Stephen Harper of signing free trade deals around the world, moving our economy away from the United States, building pipelines to both coasts and building LNG projects so we can feed the world the energy that it needs. If the Liberal government continues to do those kinds of things, will we support those kinds of efforts?”

“I will support this bill if it sticks to simple tax relief. I will not support it if the government adds hidden problems or unrelated changes to it.”

“Mr. Speaker, that was a fantastic question from my esteemed colleague from the biggest riding in northern Alberta. As long as there is common sense, this is what Conservatives have been asking for forever: tax relief and affordability for Canadians. If the proposed legislation from the government makes sense, then it is easy to support, but if it is loaded up with poison pills, if it is contradictory internally or if it has all kinds of omnibus-type consequences, then it is really hard to support. If the government sticks to the issue and presents common-sense legislation, it makes it easier to support.”

“This bill helps Canadians pay less for fuel, but it does not last long enough. The government raised fuel taxes for years, so it is hypocritical of them to offer this relief now instead of years ago.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is an example of hypocrisy, the way I see it. This is, I think, a good bill. It would give affordability for Canadians, but it is short-term. If it is so good now, why was it not good six months ago? Why was it not good a year ago? Why was it not good five years ago, when these measures and taxes on fuel and energy were raised and raised again? It was the current Prime Minister who was whispering in the ear of the previous Parliament to institute the carbon tax. He thought that was fantastically good policy. That hypocrisy is on the table now for Canadians to see.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 31 of 100

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

  See full analysis →
• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I support this bill to cut the fuel tax. Conservatives pushed for this tax relief, and the government is finally admitting we were right. But this bill is only a small step. After 11 years of Liberal rule, young people still cannot afford homes or jobs, and the government still controls too much of the economy. We need to lower taxes and cut red tape so anyone can get ahead again.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to address the House tonight. I want to start my remarks by talking about the kind of society we have been and the kind of society I would like us to be. I recall that when I was elected in the 2015 election, which was right on the tail of the Harper years, various indicators showed that our country was doing well. At the time, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had won the election on the promise of “Well, maybe things are good, but we think we can do even better.” At the time, I recall making an argument in the House about the strength of our society being shaped so much by our commitment to equality of opportunity and by the fact of Canada’s combination of the policies we had and being a society where taxes were low, development was encouraged and economic activity could be pursued. It was also a society where there was a baseline of social programs in areas such as health and education that were available to everybody. This combination of a baseline of social supports and an environment in which new ideas, new investments and new businesses could start and grow was the right combination for facilitating a high degree of social mobility. Somebody who came from a less privileged background could still reasonably aspire to be among the most successful in our country. This potential, this hope, could animate the dreams and imaginations of the next generation. This was a source of strength for our country, of prosperity, of opportunity and also of social cohesion. People saw themselves as having a kind of equal opportunity, an equal ability to pursue the Canadian dream, regardless of the background they came from. I believe it is so important that we be, and restore our commitment to being, an opportunity society where people of all backgrounds and of all ages, particularly young Canadians, regardless of the family they came from and regardless of the circumstances, can have big dreams and can make those dreams a reality. However, what I hear today when I talk to young Canadians is a great deal of frustration, loss of hope, and a sense that we have become divided as a society. We have become on the one hand a nation of people who already own their home, and on the other hand a nation of people who have no hope that they will ever own their home. We have become a nation of, in some cases, people who are doing well and who respond to our social media posts about people struggling by saying, “Well, I’m not struggling”, but then there are many Canadians who are struggling and who do not see the hope or the possibility of getting ahead anymore. This is because 11 years of government policy has favoured elites and favoured incumbent holders of power at the expense of the people striving to get ahead. It has also pushed jobs and home ownership out of reach for more and more young people. We have become less of an opportunity society, and as a result, we have become more divided between those who are already at a certain level or position economically and those who struggle to even imagine that they could achieve the basic things that we associate with being able to achieve the Canadian dream. The basic things that a young person seeks from a material perspective starting out are to be able to have a good job and to be able to afford a home. That foundation of job and home is the basis on which people are able to start a family and achieve those not just material but also critical personal goals in terms of having the children they want to have, building the life and setting up the future they want to be able to provide for the next generation. However, more and more young people struggle to find a job, cannot afford a home and are delaying family formation. Now we see that this is leading to a failure, in many cases, for people to achieve the family goals they want. If we look at this statistically, the number of children people say they want on average compared to the number of children people are having on average demonstrates that many young Canadian families are not reaching the goals they have identified as wanting to pursue, which is much more than a material tragedy. It is something much deeper and more profound that is being lost. We see frustration, anger, hopelessness and increasing division as a result of the way we have declined in being an opportunity society. The hope of the Conservative Party is to fight for those who are struggling and give voice to their concerns, but also to propose constructive policies that will restore the sense of hope and opportunity that has defined our country. We are shaped in every region of the country by a certain frontier spirit, a sense that through struggle and striving, an individual should be able to get ahead, have a home, have a job and provide the beautiful and simple things that their family is seeking. While saying that there is so much more to do to restore that opportunity society, I note that the debate tonight highlights some areas in which Conservatives are winning the debate about key issues facing this country. Conservatives have for 10 years made arguments about the need to build nation-building infrastructure and about the destructive implications of the carbon tax, and we have won those debates. It does not mean that our proposals about repealing unjust taxation or building nation-building infrastructure have been fully implemented in government policy. We are still seeing many failures in terms of government action, but it is clear from the conversation, from the things being said back and forth, that we have won those debates. We have also won important cultural debates. It was not that long ago that Liberals were constantly running down our heritage and history, attacking figures like our first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald. Stephen Harper’s celebration of the Canadian victory in the War of 1812 was criticized by the Liberal establishment as promoting extreme militarism or some nonsense like that. Today, the government is saying more that recognizes the positive legacy of people like Isaac Brock and Sir John A. Macdonald. We can see that on some cultural issues and economic issues, Conservatives have been winning debates and advancing arguments. I welcome that. Sometimes Liberals talk as if it is some big political win that they have conceded major arguments that Conservatives have been making, but I am proud of the fact that on economic and cultural issues, Conservatives have been making the arguments and moving the ball forward. We are doing it on the affordability issue as well. Conservatives have put forward proposals for tax relief for Canadians in terms of gas taxes, and tonight we are debating government legislation through which the government is saying, although not quite directly but by implication, that Conservatives were right. These are the kinds of measures they are putting forward because we have won those debates. Conservatives can take pride in the fact that we are winning these arguments, but also recognize that there is more work to do, because the government, although piecemeal in conceding certain arguments, continues to have a broadly statist agenda when it comes to development. The Liberals continue to think that the big ideas, the big initiatives, the big push to get things done must be controlled through the centralizing power of government, whereas Conservatives believe in unleashing opportunity for everyone. We believe in rebuilding the opportunity society. For instance, we supported the idea of having some exceptional circumstances for major projects to be able to move forward. However, what we proposed as a better path was reforming the impact assessment process in general so that proponents of projects large and small did not have to come cap in hand to government, and anyone with a big idea could see a path to getting it done. While we are seeing some Conservative victories in terms of winning these arguments, there is so much more work that needs to be done to undo 11 years of damage under the Liberal government and to restore the opportunity society that all Canadians, particularly Canadian young people, are seeking.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Relevance 14 of 100

  Only 9% of this speech directly addressed the bill under debate.

  See full analysis →

“We should focus on real issues, not election results. Canadians will judge us on results, not speeches or promises. They will ask if they are better or worse off because of government decisions.”

“Mr. Speaker, I will just point out to the member that our job in this House is to have substantive conversations about substantive issues. He may take pride in particular by-election results. In my 11 years in this place, I can say that those are the kinds of results that we see ebbs and flows in. What Canadians will ultimately judge members of Parliament on are the results they see. It will not, in the final analysis, be on the big speeches, the promises, the meetings and the summits. Those things can be steps towards the implementation of concrete policy changes, but in the final analysis, Canadians will ask, am I better off or worse off as a result of the decisions of the government? That is the question.”

“The Liberals are using Conservative ideas. Years ago, Stephen Harper had great plans to make Canada less dependent on the United States. I want the member to reflect on those ideas so we can push the government to use them.”

“Mr. Speaker, the carbon tax happened during the election, but in this Parliament we are at a really explicit point in time where the Liberals are taking our ideas and running with them. Now, I just want to bring us back a couple of decades to where Stephen Harper started an ambitious agenda of making it so we were not so reliant on the United States. He probably started that back in 2007 or maybe prior to that. I am wondering if the member can just reflect on some of those great ideas that Stephen Harper had, and if we can push the Liberal government to pursue some of those great ideas.”

“The previous Conservative government signed trade deals with countries making up most of the world economy. This helped Canada depend less on the United States. But the Liberals blocked the building projects we needed to actually use those deals. We have lost 11 years of progress.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member raises a great point in terms of debates that Conservatives have won, which I was talking about in my speech. When Stephen Harper took office, we were very limited in our free trade agreements. We had free trade in North America and were very limited beyond that. Stephen Harper subsequently negotiated trade deals with countries representing over 60% of the world’s GDP with a massive expansion of our trading relations with like-minded democracies in Europe and in the Asia-Pacific. That was a huge step forward in terms of diversification and reducing our dependence on the United States. However, in 11 years of Liberal government, we did not seize on that opportunity because roadblocks were put in the way of infrastructure projects and of other kinds of developments that would have allowed us to seize the opportunities presented by these new trade deals. Diversification in terms of strengthening partnerships with like-minded democracies is a great concept. It is not new. It is just that we have lost 11 years of what could have been progress.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“The member used to say the Liberals could not be trusted. I want to know if she agrees with their policies now. Conservatives are winning the debate on cutting taxes.”

“Mr. Speaker, in terms of who is going to be there or not there, I want to respectfully say to this member that I know she was an NDP member of a provincial parliament previously, and that she referred to the Liberals as being “untrustworthy”, “conniving” and “the surest path to greater evil”. I wonder if this member would speak openly about some of the policy decisions of the government now and whether she is comfortable with them. It is amazing to see how so many Liberals have swallowed themselves whole. I am glad we are winning the debates on things like cutting taxes, but it is hard to understand how those members reconcile—”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 6 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Pausing the fuel tax helps, but a short break is not enough. Fuel taxes drive up the cost of food, rent, and travel. The government should remove all federal taxes from gas and diesel permanently. It should also cut foreign aid spending and use that money to help Canadians who cannot afford basic needs.”

“Mr. Speaker, for years Conservatives have been calling on the Liberal government to provide meaningful relief to Canadians. We have raised concerns about the rising costs of gas, transportation and groceries, and have warned of the pressure facing families, workers, seniors and small businesses. Today, the government is extending a fuel tax relief measure that it originally said would be temporary. Why is that? It is because the economic reality has proven Conservatives right. Gas taxes matter. The price Canadians pay at the pump matters. When the government adds taxes to fuel, those costs spread throughout our entire economy. Gas is not a luxury for most Canadians. It is an unavoidable expense. People need to get to work. Parents need to take their children to school, medical appointments and sports, and seniors rely on transportation to buy groceries and attend appointments. Businesses need fuel to move products and serve their customers. The truck driver delivering goods across the country feels the increase, as does the farmer operating machinery, the construction worker driving to a job site and the small business paying for deliveries, which ultimately results in Canadians paying more at the grocery store. Every added expense along the supply chain is passed down to families buying food, clothing and other everyday essentials. That is why Conservatives fought the Liberal government’s proposed increases to fuel taxes. After months of Conservative pressure, the Liberals have now been forced to delay that increase until early next year. I will say, any relief for working Canadians is welcome, but let us be clear, this is not the result of a government that suddenly understands affordability. It is the result of Canadians speaking out and Conservatives refusing to back down. The government’s own announcement recognizes that truckers, farmers, home builders, construction workers and delivery companies benefit from fuel tax relief. Liberals previously argued that the fuel taxes had little impact on affordability. Now, by extending this relief, they are admitting that lower fuel taxes reduce costs throughout our economy. If suspending the tax helps Canadians today, then keeping fuel taxes low should be a priority. This short extension is another Liberal half measure. It does not provide the long-term relief that Canadians need. Gas prices have risen by 25.7%, energy costs have increased by 16.6% and transportation costs have climbed by 7.8%, while grocery prices have risen by another 3.1%. These are not just numbers. They determine whether a parent can afford to drive to work, whether a senior can pay the rent and still buy groceries, or whether a small business can continue employing local workers. In Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, I hear these stories every day. Neil is a 63-year-old resident who came to my office looking for help because he was struggling to pay his rent. As we looked through the programs that were supposed to be available to him, he learned that he did not qualify for many of them. Neil began tearing up in my office. Now at 63 years old, he is looking for a second job just to keep a roof over his head. That should alarm every single member in the House. A Canadian who has worked hard and contributed through his life should not have to take a second job at 63 simply to survive. Our seniors should not be returning to the workforce because they cannot afford rent, groceries and transportation. Here is the reality for too many Canadians: higher taxes, raising prices, unaffordable rent, growing debt and less hope that the next month will be any easier. The Liberals would have Canadians believe that this is normal. The government needs to stop telling Canadians how well they are doing and start listening when they say they are falling behind. Canadians understand something that Liberals have ignored for far too long, which is that taxing fuel makes life more expensive. That is why the Conservatives are calling on the government to remove all federal taxes on gas and diesel. That means removing the 7¢ per litre imposed by the clean fuel regulations, taking the GST off fuel and permanently cancelling the industrial carbon tax. Together, these measures could save Canadians up to 25¢ per litre and as much as $1,000 per year for the average family. That would be real relief, not another temporary pause or announcement designed to get the government through the next few months. Canadians need lower prices that they can actually see when they fill their tank, buy groceries and pay their monthly bills. Across the country, people are skipping meals, relying on food banks, putting the cost of groceries on credit cards and working multiple jobs just to stay afloat. At the same time, the Liberal government has recorded almost $26 billion in foreign aid spending over the last two years. That includes about $460 million to Ethiopia, $340 million to Haiti, $312 million to Bangladesh, $306 million to the Democratic Republic of Congo, $275 million to Mozambique, $265 million to Tanzania and $238 million to South Africa. In times like this, every dollar must be tied to measurable results and spent in Canadians’ national interest. That standard has not always been met. The Auditor General previously found that Global Affairs Canada could not properly show whether $3.5 billion in foreign aid spending under its feminist international assistance policy was actually improving conditions for women and girls. That is not accountability. We need to stop sending our taxpayer dollars overseas. We should cut the gas tax instead. We are the Canadian government. We should be looking out for Canadians. Canadians deserve to know where their money is going, how it is being used and what results it is producing. Instead of increasing costs for families buying groceries, it should eliminate wasteful spending and bring those savings home. It should also take a serious look at its priorities before telling struggling Canadians that there is no money available to help them. Canadians should not have to choose between filling their vehicle and putting food on the table. Seniors should not have to choose between paying rent and buying medication. Parents should not have to tell their children that they cannot attend hockey practice because the cost of driving has become too high. Small business owners should not have to lay off workers because taxes and transportation expenses have destroyed their bottom line. Canada is a strong and generous country, but a government cannot continue trying to help everyone everywhere while ignoring the people struggling here at home. The Liberals’ decision to delay their fuel tax increase proves that Conservative pressure works. It confirms that fuel taxes contribute to higher prices and that relief is possible when the government is finally forced to listen. However, Canadians need more than a temporary extension. They need a government that respects how hard they work for every dollar, controls its spending, lowers taxes and puts their needs first. Conservatives are proud that our pressure helped secure this relief, but our work is not finished. We will keep fighting to remove federal taxes from gas and diesel; lower the cost of food, transportation and housing; and defend seniors such as Neil who deserve dignity and security after a lifetime of hard work. Canadians have carried the burden of the current government’s costly policies long enough. It is time for lower taxes and bringing down the cost of living for Canadians first. The first responsibility of the Government of Canada must be to the people of Canada.”