“I support this bill because any tax cut helps, but it does not go far enough. It only takes 10 cents off gas for a short time. Canada is in an affordability crisis. We should remove all federal fuel taxes until at least Canada Day in 2027 to give families real relief.”

“Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt. I want to bring members back to a couple of hours ago when the House voted on a motion. We had a very simple vote on a very simple motion earlier today. I will read the text for everybody watching at home just so they see how simple it was. It reads: That the House officially recognize that: (a) the Liberals have been in power for 11 years; and (b) Canada is in an affordability crisis. The entire motion is one sentence, and nothing in it is untrue. The Liberals have been in power for 11 years, and we do not need a calendar to confirm that. On the second part, members can ask anybody across the country who is trying to save up to buy a place of their own, put food on the table consistently or even pay their bills, and they will tell them that the answer to that question is yes, Canada is in an affordability crisis. However, earlier today, every single Liberal MP on that side of the House stood up to oppose that motion, and in doing so, they denied reality. They denied the reality of millions of Canadians. They denied their own record in the same way they have been running from it since the Prime Minister got here. They pretend that the same MPs, the same cabinet ministers and the same advisers who served under Justin Trudeau, many of whom are now promoted, are somehow not responsible for everything that happened over the last 11 years. What is worse is that they deny the financial reality that millions of Canadians are living right now, just outside of this place. I invite them to visit a food bank in Toronto and defend that vote. Some have foolishly taken a picture in front of that food bank, but they should actually go in and see the rising numbers. Last year, Toronto food banks recorded 4.1 million visits, which is the highest number recorded, and a 340% increase since 2019. The line did not just double. It more than quadrupled. Maybe the Liberals could explain their vote to the 46% of Canadians who say that they are less than $200 away from not being able to pay their bills every single month. Maybe they could explain it to the nearly three in 10 who say they already do not earn enough to cover their bills and their debt together. That is who they voted against today when they voted to deny reality and deny the financial reality of so many of those people. That same denial runs through the legislation that we are debating again today. The government frames Bill C-38 as a major affordability measure. In reality, as we have heard many times, it would extend a temporary pause on one federal tax at the pump, which is a 10¢-a-litre excise tax. By the finance minister’s own math, that is about five dollars off of a 50-litre fill-up. It is something, that is for sure, but it is not enough. It is not enough for the affordability crisis that we are facing, and it comes with an expiry date, as if that affordability crisis, which was created over the last 11 years, would just automatically disappear. On February 1, half of that tax comes back and the relief drops to 5¢ a litre. On April 1, the rest comes off and the relief drops to zero. Every other federal charge built into the price of fuel stays in place, which means the GST stays in place, the clean fuel standard stays in place and the cost of the industrial carbon tax stays in place. We could remove all of them and families, seniors and truckers could save up to 25¢ a litre, but that is not what we are talking about here. It is what we could be talking about. Under the Conservative proposal, the relief would not vanish next February. It would last until at least Canada Day in 2027. It would be up to $1,000 of savings for the average Canadian family, which is real money that would help, but if members vote against even recognizing an affordability crisis in the House just hours ago, then why would anybody trust them to fix it? Throughout this debate, we have heard a lot of bluster from the other side and not so much on the facts point. I just want to lay out a timeline for those following, because some Liberal MPs have been trying to take credit for the ideas, and other Liberal MPs do not understand why they are doing it. On April 2, Conservatives called for federal taxes on gas and diesel to be removed for the rest of 2026. Twelve days later, the Liberals announced a partial version of that plan, pausing only the excise tax and only until Labour Day. Fast-forward to August 16, when we demanded cancellation of the Labour Day tax hike and removal of all the federal fuel taxes until at least Canada Day in 2027, and on September 2, the Liberals backed down again and announced that extension, which is the bill in front of us today. Each time, they arrived late, and each time, they brought less than Canadians needed. If not for our Conservative pressure, I do not think we would be debating this at all. If nobody on this side of the House had called for it, I do not think we would be standing here. I do not think it would have existed in the budget, which we should have seen a couple weeks ago, and I do not think they would have done it, because the current government has a habit of dealing with problems by pretending they do not exist, hence the vote earlier today, just as the Liberals are pretending that we are not in an affordability crisis by voting against Canadians, who are clearly living much of their lives in that crisis. In March, the Prime Minister told Canadians that affordability was the best it had been in a decade, but I want him to really look in the faces of a family and tell that to the family filling its minivan this week. Meanwhile, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, whom we heard from today, reports that the deficit went from $36 billion under Justin Trudeau in the last fiscal year, to $72 billion this year. That is not a little more spending. That is double. It is putting groceries on the credit card and calling it a budget. We will see what happens in the next couple of weeks. The problem still for all those families is that it is getting worse. Yesterday, Statistics Canada reported that inflation rose to 3.1% in September, up from 3% in August. Gasoline prices are up nearly 28% from a year ago. Fuel oil is up almost 58%, hitting families in Atlantic Canada the hardest, because that is what many of them there use to heat their home. Grocery prices are up 33% since 2020. We know there are lots of reasons for these costs rising, but today we are debating actually giving relief to families and taking some of that money off their bills. Families obviously feel this. Six in 10 Canadians say that at least half their paycheque is already spoken for before it even arrives. Yes, we need to do more, and Conservatives are never going to stand in the way of relief or a tax cut. That is what we came here to fight for, no matter how small it is and no matter how time-limited it is, because even a little money makes a difference for people who are facing strife in their communities right now all over the country. However, we will keep daring the government to do more. We will keep advocating from this side of the House, because the only reason we are having this conversation is that the Liberals were put in a corner to have to do this. We will keep making it very uncomfortable not to act, and we will keep speaking for all the families who need the relief, who need longer-term relief and who need bigger relief on their paycheques. The Liberals have already moved from denial to partial acceptance, and we see that with this bill. We just want them to go further. We want them to get rid of all the taxes that they continue to put on fuel, such as the fuel standard, which will eventually raise the price of gas by 17¢ a litre by 2030. First they refused to touch the gas tax, period, and now they are giving us a hidden carbon tax. We want them to not actually stop the tax cut on Labour Day, and we want them to stretch it for a few more months or even longer, as long as it takes for families to get out from under the affordability crisis the government has buried them in. If the Liberals want to keep borrowing ideas, that is fine. If the Liberals want to react to a strong opposition that is going to push them to do the right thing, that is fine, but we actually want them to get this done. Canadians should not have to wait for the Liberals to always catch up. They certainly should not have to watch the government take credit for doing the bare minimum. That is exactly what we are going to advocate for with this bill and so many others that will come to the floor of the House of Commons. We want real relief for families and for every Canadian from coast to coast.”

• Echo ×8

  A repeated line

  “Canada is officially in an affordability crisis.”

  Said 8 times by 7 members since October 8.

  Every time it was said →

“The government increased its deficit from $25 billion to $60 billion in under 10 years, and it will reach $83 billion by 2030. That is a 232% increase. That money does not go to nurses, groceries, or gas. It goes straight to paying interest on debt.”

“Mr. Speaker, I know that the member came here with a prepared speech to read to another member without listening to their speech, but I will just make something clear to the member opposite: One of the biggest reasons is that the government, in less than 10 years, went from a $25-billion deficit to a $60-billion deficit, only to go to an $83-billion deficit by 2030. That is a 232% increase. It is not for nurses, not for groceries and not for gas, and it does not go into the pockets of ordinary Canadians. It goes straight to interest payments. If the member wants to sit here and deny the record of all the members in the front benches for the last 11 years, he can do so, but he is going to have to look his constituents in the eye and explain that to them.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 23 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Canadians pushed for this fuel tax relief. Does my colleague think people will be doing well enough early next year to pay all these gas taxes again?”

“Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague that there has been pressure from the Conservatives and from Canadians for this relief on taxes and the excise tax. Does she believe that by January, February, March and April of the coming year, Canadians will be in such better shape that we could put all the taxes back on gasoline?”

“Canadians cannot afford everyday life right now. The government's temporary tax cuts do not go far enough, and earlier today, other members voted against tax relief. After 11 years of Liberal rule, things will only get worse for Canadians because the Liberals broke the system.”

“Mr. Speaker, we voted on a very simple motion in the House today. Again I will remind other members that they stood up and voted against it, recognizing that Canada is in an affordability crisis. There is a problem with these temporary measures that do not go far enough. Coupled with the vote today, if someone does not recognize and does not admit to themselves that we are in an affordability crisis, if they do not listen to their constituents and do not look at Canadians out there, then they can never truly solve it and can never truly do the work to help Canadians. If we look to January and February, the record of the Liberal government over the course of the 11 years will continue, and things will continue to get worse, not because this country is broken but because the Liberals broke it.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 33 of 100

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

  See full analysis →
• 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 →

“We will vote for this bill because it cuts taxes and helps families. But the government must admit that people need much more help than this.”

“Mr. Speaker, I wish the member had listened to my speech before he asked the question. Of course we will vote for affordability measures. Of course we will vote for tax cuts. It is a small piece of relief for families that need it. However, we want the Liberals to recognize that a whole lot more needs to be done. It was needed well before the member got here and will be needed well after he is gone.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“We want to lower taxes for all Canadian families for as long as we can. The government should cut its wasteful spending and borrowing instead of keeping taxes high.”

“Mr. Speaker, we certainly want to reduce taxes for every single Canadian family for as long as possible, and we want to do it by cutting the frivolous spending of the Liberal government, the spending that continues to go up and that charges Canadians interest on its borrowed dime.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 17 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I will vote for this bill because it lowers fuel taxes for people in northern Ontario, where everyone has to drive. But it is only temporary relief. I want the government to cut fuel taxes longer, scrap the industrial carbon tax and fuel rules, and give drivers permanent tax cuts.”

“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-38, the Canadian fuel affordability act. I will be supporting this bill because whenever there is an opportunity to make life more affordable for Canadians, especially for the people of Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt, I will support it. However, let me be clear: While the bill is a step in the right direction, it would not go far enough to address the affordability challenges facing northern Ontarians. Before I had the privilege of serving my constituents in Parliament, I owned and operated a small wholesale petroleum business. For more than 25 years, we supplied petroleum products to retail, commercial, industrial and residential customers throughout northern Ontario. Fuel costs were a significant expense, representing more than 30% of operating costs. Any increase in fuel pricing had an immediate impact. What affected my business then affects families and businesses across northern Ontario even more today. People in my region drive because they have to. They drive to work. They drive to school. They drive to medical appointments. They drive drive in order to buy groceries and to visit family. Unlike residents of major urban centres such as Toronto or Ottawa, northern Ontarians do not have the option of taking public transit to get around. That is why any measure that lowers the cost of fuel is something I support. However, make no mistake: This bill is before us today because Conservatives forced the government’s hand. For years, Conservatives have argued that taxes on fuel and energy are too high. We warned that rising fuel costs were driving up the price of groceries, increasing home heating costs, raising transportation expenses and making life less affordable for working Canadians. We brought forward motions. We raised these concerns in the House. We stood up for Canadians struggling with the cost of living. Eventually the government was forced to respond, but it did so only with temporary measures. First, the government suspended the excise tax on fuel. Then, after continued pressure from Conservatives, it extended that suspension until January 31, 2027, reduced the tax rate by half for February and March and scheduled the full tax to return on April 1, 2027. While this relief is welcome, it remains just that: temporary. For people in northern Ontario filling a typical 50-litre tank, the full suspension would save more than five dollars per fill-up. That is a start. Every dollar matters when families are stretching their budget. The problem is that this relief would come with an expiry date. Come April 1, 2027, the full tax would return. Canadians will not suddenly become more affluent on February 1, 2027. Northern Ontarians will still need to get to work. Students will still need to get to school. Families will still need to attend medical appointments. Truckers will still need to move goods across the country. The government’s plan would not solve the problem. It would simply postpone it. The federal excise tax currently adds 10¢ per litre to gasoline and four cents per litre to diesel. Conservatives have consistently said this is too much. The government likes to point to temporary fuel tax relief as proof that it is helping Canadians at the pumps. Any relief is welcome, and I support measures that help families keep more of their hard-earned money, but there is a reality that the government rarely talks about. It is that when fuel prices go up, governments collect more HST because that tax is charged as a percentage of the price at the pump. In Ontario, drivers pay HST not only for the fuel itself, but also on the federal and provincial fuel taxes already built into the price. In other words, Canadians are paying tax on top of taxes. The higher fuel prices climb, the more tax revenue governments collect, so while motorists may receive a few cents per litre in temporary relief, governments can be bringing in even more through increased HST revenues. For people across northern Ontario, that matters. Driving is not a luxury. It is how people get to work and keep their businesses running. Northerners do not have the option of simply driving less. That is why affordability cannot be based on temporary measures and short-term announcements. Northern Ontarians need lasting relief that recognizes a simple reality, which is that in our part of the country, transportation is not optional and every extra cent at the pump comes out of a family budget or small business trying to make ends meet. The Conservative position is straightforward. It is to remove federal taxes on gasoline and diesel until at least Canada Day 2027 and permanently eliminate the clean fuel regulations and the industrial carbon tax. Together, those measures could reduce fuel costs by approximately 25¢ per litre. That is meaningful relief. We know what happens when fuel costs rise. Transportation costs rise, the cost of moving goods rises, the price of building materials goes up, small businesses face higher operating expenses and, ultimately, those costs are passed on to consumers. At every stage of the economy, higher fuel costs make life more expensive. Meanwhile, diesel prices in the United States remain significantly lower than they are in Canada, placing Canadian producers, businesses and supply chains at a competitive disadvantage. The government cannot control global energy markets or geopolitical events, but it can control the taxes and regulations imposed on Canadians here at home. Conservatives proposed a plan that would reduce federal taxes on fuel until Canada Day 2027, permanently eliminate the industrial carbon tax and repeal the clean fuel regulations affecting diesel production. We have also called for increased domestic refining capacity and expanded fuel storage reserves so that Canada is better prepared when global disruptions cause prices to hike. Bill C-38 is better than nothing. I have always said that Conservatives will support measures that put money back into the pockets of northern Ontarians, but temporary tax relief with a sunset clause is not a long-term affordability strategy. Affordable energy should be a permanent priority, not a temporary political adjustment. Northern Ontarians are not asking for more government programs. They are asking to keep more of their own money. They are asking for lower taxes and a government that understands the realities of life in rural and northern Canada. Conservatives will support Bill C-38 and the relief it provides, but we will also continue fighting for a broader solution: the permanent removal of the industrial carbon tax, the elimination of the clean fuel regulations and an energy policy that puts affordability first. I will continue fighting for lower taxes for the people of Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt and Conservatives will continue fighting for lower taxes for all Canadians.”

“Fuel costs are too high, especially in rural and northern Ontario where everything is moved by truck. The government should extend the fuel tax break for longer. It will not cost the government any money because higher fuel prices already bring in more sales tax.”

“Madam Speaker, I think what I am trying to say is that the fuel costs are too high. Especially in rural and northern Ontario, where I come from, transportation costs and diesel costs affect everything. Everything is transported by truck and so on. Whether we eliminate the excise tax for good or extend it for a longer period of time, when the prices are higher, the Government of Canada is collecting more GST from those revenues. It is not costing the government any money to extend that longer. It should be at least extended to what—”

• 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 →

“Electric vehicles do not work well in cold winters where I live. We need to pause the fuel tax for even longer, and we need to find other ways to lower costs.”

“Madam Speaker, first of all, where I come from, EVs are not really practical. They do not have enough power for the winter months, when it gets cold. As for the excise tax, the fuel surcharge that is going on should be extended for a longer period of time. We should be looking at different ways of reducing costs.”

“Global events like wars raise the price of oil, but taxes make it cost even more. Cutting taxes helps buyers, and that is always a good thing.”

“Madam Speaker, it is true that global pressures, wars and so on are having an impact on the price of oil. However, prices are set on a certain base amount, and taxes are then added on top. The relief we can give to consumers by reducing taxes is always a good thing.”