Canadian Fuel Affordability Act

Bill C-38, Canadian Fuel Affordability Act · Report stage · now law Where it stands

What the law does

The law extends the temporary suspension of the federal fuel excise tax until January 31, 2027. Between February 1, 2027, and March 31, 2027, excise tax rates on fuels are set at 50% of their regular rates.

Official text (opens in a new tab)

164 statements

Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Liberal
“I want the House to pass this bill to keep pausing the fuel tax. Conservatives did not come up with this idea. Our government has always worked to make life more affordable, just like when we cut taxes, helped with groceries, and set up food for school kids.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I want to start off by answering a question that was thrown from across the way in the form of a heckle. The Conservatives were asking why we did it, trying to imply it was the Conservative Party that ultimately led the government of the day to bring forward Bill C-38. I would like to share with the House my interpretation of why we are here today debating Bill C-38. All we have to do is take a look at what took place in the last federal election. We had a Prime Minister who worked extensively with candidates and, through that, came up with a policy position that dealt with an issue that was close to his heart: the issue of affordability. The Prime Minister made this very clear when he became the leader of the Liberal Party, and thereby the Prime Minister of Canada, when the first decision he made was to get rid of the carbon tax. He believed it was important to give that tax break to Canadians. That was 17¢ a litre, and even more for diesel. I believe that from day one to today, we have seen a Prime Minister who is committed to the issue of affordability and making life more affordable for Canadians as much as possible. It is as simple as that. Today, the Conservatives talk about the tax break on gasoline, saying it is their idea. If that makes them sleep better at night, they should go ahead, but I can tell the House that after the last provincial election, Wab Kinew did the same thing. He got rid of the tax on gas, the excise tax, to give Manitobans a break on the price of gas, dealing with the issue of affordability. I guess the Conservatives might have borrowed or stolen the idea from Wab Kinew, a New Democrat premier. I say that because I truly believe and can promise every member opposite that the Prime Minister and all Liberal members of Parliament understand the issue of affordability. This is one of the reasons we are not only suggesting that we need to pass Bill C-38, but why we have seen many initiatives, with the leadership of this Prime Minister, being brought forward to support Canadians at a time when we believe it is necessary. Affordability is an issue that goes even beyond Canadian borders. Not all governments are actually taking the types of actions this government has taken. I would suggest that individuals who are following the debate tonight, in particular my Conservative friends across the way, take a look at the broader picture and take a look at the types of actions this government has actually taken since the last federal election. If we stick strictly to the issue of affordability, it takes place in many different ways and I would like to refer to a few of those ways. We can talk about the fuel excise tax suspension that was put into place during our spring economic update, which provided tax relief. Then, as we approached Labour Day weekend, it was decided that we would once again extend that suspension. We were looking at a number of factors when the decision was ultimately made that it would be in the best interests of all of us to extend that suspension. That is, in fact, what Bill C-38 would do. It would put money in the pockets of Canadians because of the price of gas, something that no one inside this chamber actually controls. None of us controls the world price on gas. It is not like we can click our heels and the war in the Middle East or in Europe will come to an end. These are things that are having a profound impact on the world price of oil. We do not know when they are going to come to an end. We do not know how the price is going to be impacted over the coming months, yet I have seen some Conservative MPs, in a very irresponsible way, stand up to say they are going to abolish it completely, forever. That is what they imply in their comments. Then there are some Conservative MPs who say they would suspend it until Canada Day. They are developing policy on the fly. There is no consistent plan coming out of the Conservative Party. There is no change coming from the leadership and actions that we witness by members of the Conservative Party. It is unfortunate, because I believe that Canadians were very clear in the last federal election. They saw a detailed Liberal election commitment or platform, and Bill C-38, the bill we are debating this evening, is one piece of legislation that reflects what we told Canadians we would do. We could take a look at other measures that have taken place. I could talk about an initiative that took place after getting rid of the carbon tax. It was a tax break for 22 million Canadians. More than 22 million Canadians benefited from a reduction of, I believe, 13% to 14%. It was a significant amount of money. A significant number of Canadians directly benefited from that particular program. One of the issues recognized by the Liberal caucus was grocery prices. That is why we came up with the Canada groceries benefit program. We converted the GST rebate program by enhancing it greatly and providing one-time support to form a new program that helps millions of Canadians, especially those in the lower- to middle-class group. It puts more money in the pockets of millions. One of the programs the Prime Minister made a commitment to make permanent is a program that I thought everyone inside this chamber would have gotten behind. It is the national school program, which puts food into our schools, to the benefit of 400,000 children in every region of our nation. We listened to what the Conservatives said about that and affordability. I think it went beyond affordability, quite frankly. Despite the benefits of that program, think about what the Conservatives said. We had eight Conservative members say it is a garbage program. We had others say it was not delivering food, that no food was being delivered in our school programs, even though every member has schools that are benefiting directly from that program. Even to this day, Conservatives give the impression and state that they are going to get rid of that particular program. Before I leave that, I want to remind members, as I have done in the past, about Sharon Carstairs, who was the leader of the Liberal Party back in 1988, elected to the Manitoba legislature. That is when I was first elected to the Manitoba legislature. She talked about children not being able to learn on an empty stomach, and that was back in 1988. It is a generational problem. It does not just deal with the issue of affordability. The Prime Minister understood that and has made it a permanent program. Not only does it help with the issue of affordability in a very real and tangible way, but it helps tens of thousands of children while they go to school. In total, it helps 400,000 children. Another program that we continue to support is the dental care program. Imagine the thousands of seniors benefiting. It is amazing that a Conservative member will stand in their place and say that we are not giving enough to seniors, yet they vote against and would take away the dental program. Who do they think is one of the major beneficiaries of the dental program? It is the seniors on fixed incomes across Canada, in every region of our nation. By having a program of this nature, we are seeing more seniors getting dental work done, which is so very important. If they did not get it done, they would end up in our hospitals to get the dental work done. It would happen far too often. For those using the program, it helps on the issue of affordability. I think of the break the government, led by the Prime Minister, gave in regard to the purchase of a first home, exempting the GST. Let us think about that. There are two real benefits, I would argue, to that particular program. First, the individual purchasing a home is saving literally thousands of dollars. It makes it more affordable. As an aside, the cost of homes in general has been going down in many regions of our country. The first-time homebuyer program that exempts the GST on, I believe, homes under $1 million is saving a massive amount of money for a lot of Canadians. That is one benefit through the program. Another benefit is that it increases Canada’s housing stock. Increasing Canada’s housing stock is a good thing that leads to more Canadian lumber being used, more Canadian steel being used and more Canadians working to build. That has been a common theme for this Prime Minister, this government and every Liberal member of Parliament. We are looking at not only indirect benefits, like giving money through tax breaks and providing programs like the dental program and the school food program, but also indirect benefits. Let us think about jobs. Jobs matter. We hear from the Conservatives that in X month jobs went down, in Y month jobs went down and in Z month jobs went down. However, it is important to look at the net number of jobs since we have had our new Prime Minister. It is tens of thousands of jobs. It is over 150,000 net new jobs. This is at a time when we are being challenged by trade and tariff issues from Trump, the President of the United States, not to mention the pressures coming outside of that. At the same time as that has been going on, we have been able to increase the number of net jobs in Canada. Arguably, on a per capita basis, we are doing better than the United States. The Conservatives often talk about the issue of youth unemployment, saying that youth unemployment is high. I agree that it is high. It is not as high as it was back in 2012 when Stephen Harper was the prime minister and the leader of the Conservative Party sat around the cabinet table. It was over 14% back in 2012, compared to last year, when we had just under 14%. It is not just about recognizing the stats. It is about looking at what the government is doing to support our young people by ensuring they can get jobs. I said that there have been 150,000-plus new jobs created in Canada since the new Prime Minister was elected with a new Liberal government. On indirectly creating jobs for young people, we can take a look at the Red Seal program. The Red Seal program, with the certification of it, is an incredible program, and the biggest beneficiaries are the young people of Canada. We are investing in that program to the extent that between 80,000 and 100,000 people will enter the program over the next number of years. They are being supported in a very real and tangible way in the form of a $5,000 grant upon completion, thereby making things like it more affordable. Unlike what Stephen Harper would have done back in the day when he had higher youth unemployment and the Conservatives cut the summer youth program, this government continues to reinforce and support the Canada summer youth program, which often provides Canadians a first job. It often gives them experience. It often gives them the referrals and opportunity to grow and get jobs. What it shows is that the government is very much aware of the issue of affordability and the issue of unemployment, and we continue to push the envelope in growing our economy. On the issue of groceries, I get just as frustrated as most. I want to see more accountability on grocery prices, and we will continue to push for that. I thank the farmers of Canada for the quality product they take out of the fields and barns, and so much more. We not only feed Canadians through our farmers, but also feed the world. As a government, we continue to look at ways in which we can enhance food production here in Canada to become even more sovereign, like promoting, encouraging and supporting things like greenhouses. Imagine more vegetables growing year-round in Canada because of a government initiative. These are the types of actions we have taken in a very short period of time, along with numerous more, but I do not have unlimited time to talk about them. I would love to talk about issues of trade. I would love to be able to talk about issues like building and capital investment funds or a national sovereignty fund. There is so much there because we as a government understand that to build a stronger and healthier Canada, we have to be prepared to invest. We have had budgets invest in Canadians to encourage Canada to continue to be the best country in the world to call home.

Jeremy Patzer, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley

Conservative
“The member was not talking about the bill. He talked about growing food instead. If the government wants to help with that, it should fund the irrigation project at Lake Diefenbaker. It promised to pay for this project in several elections, but it has done nothing. I want a yes-or-no answer on whether the government will fund it.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Relevance 5 of 100

    None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
  • Question or comment in debate

    Respect 86 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “the member spends a lot of time filling this chamber with hot air, talking about basically nothing.”.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, the member spends a lot of time filling this chamber with hot air, talking about basically nothing. What he was talking about had nothing to do with the actual text of the bill dealing with fuel affordability, but I will bite. He was talking about growing more fresh produce in Canada. One way that could happened would be by creating the ability to have more greenhouses. I will talk about one particular area in Saskatchewan, right around Lake Diefenbaker. The government promised to fund the Lake Diefenbaker irrigation project, which is probably a $6-billion to $8-billion project. The provincial government of Saskatchewan has said it is one of the big focuses of our province, yet the government has done absolutely nothing. Adding the member for northern Saskatchewan to the Liberal caucus has done nothing to advance that project in Saskatchewan. Will this member sit here today and say that the government is going to do what it promised in multiple campaigns and failed to do? In fact, it is a legacy project for Ralph Goodale. Will the member stand up in the House and say that the government will follow up on its commitment to fund the Lake Diefenbaker project in Saskatchewan, yes or no?

Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Liberal
“Our government supports Prairie farmers, while the Conservatives ignored them in the last election. We opened a water agency in Winnipeg and lowered Chinese tariffs on canola. We are also helping farmers sell their food in Asia.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, the government established the water agency in the city of Winnipeg dealing with waste water management through the prairies and beyond. I would remind my friend from Saskatchewan that, if he looks at the Conservative policy book from the last federal election, he will find that there was zero attention from the Conservative Party given to the Prairies or our farmers on the Prairies, in particular in his home province of Saskatchewan. I have talked to some of those canola farmers in the provinces of Saskatchewan or Manitoba to hear what they had to say about having a Prime Minister who was able to move forward and take some steps with respect to reducing the tariffs on canola and making it more feasible to have trade opportunities going into China. The Conservatives mocked the government for doing so, which is somewhat shameful for it to have done. but that has not stopped the government, because we see the benefits of the agri-food markets. That is one of the reasons we are aggressively pursuing trade agreements beyond the Canada-U.S. border, for example, using the agri-food office in Manila for India and Asia as a whole to export agri-food products to Asia. There have been many initiatives brought forward by the government in support of our farmers, and we will continue to work with farmers to do even more.

John-Paul Danko, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas

Liberal
“Our government is making life more affordable by cutting the fuel tax. We are also funding ports, food shipping, and public transit so people and businesses rely less on expensive fuel.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, the hon. member spoke about a number of affordability measures that our government is taking, such as removing the excise tax on fuel as a direct measure, but there are also a number of very indirect measures that are directly improving affordability across Canada, such as the national food strategy, which is making food more available across the country. We are also investing in food distribution terminals; investing in port infrastructure, such as in Hamilton, taking trucks off of the highway so they are not relying on diesel fuel to transport food and other commodities; investing in municipal infrastructure to build better, complete communities; and investing in transit and reducing costs for people living in municipalities across the country, which then removes their reliance on some of those transportation costs and fuel.

Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Liberal
“Canada needs a real food plan. The Conservatives should offer one instead of just asking for tax cuts. The government has programs to help, but the Conservatives keep voting against them.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, the member reminds me of the importance of having an actual food strategy. That is why I found it interesting when the deputy leader of the Conservative Party, who was speaking a number of minutes ago, was talking about the Conservatives’ so-called great opposition day motion. I had a few thoughts on that when it was up for debate. It sure would have been nice to see an opposition day motion that deals with a food strategy. I would love to hear a plan coming from the Conservative Party with respect to what we are doing. My colleague from Hamilton and I have provided an explanation regarding some of the initiatives that, for the most part, the Government of Canada is doing and the Conservatives continue to vote against. There is more to a food strategy than to just keep asking for tax cuts.

Tako Van Popta, Langley Township—Fraser Heights

Conservative
“Liberals used to say high gas prices and the carbon tax did not cause inflation, while Conservatives said the carbon tax had to go. Now Liberals admit high gas prices cause inflation, and they got rid of the carbon tax. I want to know if the Liberals will admit Conservatives were right all along.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, it was not long ago that we were hearing Liberals say that high gas prices were not going to affect inflation. As a matter of fact, they were saying, in the last Parliament, that Canadians were better off with the carbon tax than without it while we were arguing against it, saying that the carbon tax had to be removed. Now we are seeing a complete about-face with the same Liberals saying the opposite, which is that gas prices are inflationary and that they have to be brought down, and the carbon tax is gone. I want to know this: Are the Liberals acknowledging, finally, that the Conservatives had it right all along?

Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Liberal
“The answer is no. Conservatives have changed their minds on the carbon tax many times under different leaders. We changed our minds once to help make life more affordable, and our decision to get rid of the carbon tax is permanent.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, no, but this is interesting. There are a dozen-plus career politicians on the Conservative benches. We will find that, I believe, Stephen Harper was in favour of a carbon tax in a different form. Then they had a change in leadership, and the Conservatives were against it. Then Erin O’Toole, a new Conservative leader, came by and said, “I think it’s a good thing”, but the current leader said, “No, we want to get rid of it.” Under the leadership of our Prime Minister on the issue of affordability, we made the decision that it was time to permanently get rid of the carbon tax. Yes, there was a change. We have not changed as much as the Conservative Party has, but I can assure the member that it is permanent.

Carlos Leitão, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry

Liberal
“Our government helps lower-income Canadians with things like the dental care program and pausing the fuel tax. The Conservatives want big tax cuts instead. I want the member to tell us if their plan puts our social programs at risk, and which ones they would cut.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, our colleague mentioned in his speech that there are measures to address the affordability issues, namely Bill C-38, which would suspend the fuel excise tax. He also pointed out that there are other social programs that have been put in place over the past few years to mostly assist Canadians on the lower side of the income scale to be able to meet the demands of everyday life, such as the dental program and so on. I would like my colleague to comment on the fact that, in the so-called affordability program of the opposition, there would be massive tax cuts, which would inevitably have these programs funded some other way. In his opinion, does he think that the social programs we now have in place would be at risk, and if so, which ones would the Conservatives eliminate?

Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Liberal
“The Conservatives only care about cutting taxes. If they get their way, they will cut programs like free school food, dental care, and medicine. Our government also cuts taxes, but we protect the programs people need.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, that is a good question. I think there would be some programs that would instantly be on the chopping block, such as, unfortunately, the national school food program, which helps 400,000 children. The dental care program would be another one on the chopping block. The Conservatives have made that very clear. They have also shown no support for the Canada pharmacare program in dealing with issues like diabetes, which is a very serious thing. There are numerous programs that the government provides to provide support to Canadians. Unfortunately, we do not hear that coming from the Conservative Party, because they are preoccupied with one subject matter, and that is tax cut after tax cut, and they are not even consistent with that. We, too, support tax cuts. Under the Prime Minister , we gave an income tax cut, and 22 million Canadians benefited. The excise tax is a suspension. The carbon tax was permanent.

Jeremy Patzer, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley

Conservative
“The Canadian economy runs on diesel. Our diesel prices are higher than world prices, and the government could lower them to help Canadians. Why will the Liberals not do that?”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, it is very clear that the Canadian economy runs on diesel. Highway 1 runs through my riding. I suspect it is not terribly far away from the member’s riding. When I drive down Highway 1, it takes two hours each and every time I go to the airport to fly out to Ottawa. The majority of the traffic is semi-trucks, which run on diesel. The previous motion we had before the House would have cut the price down, because we are about 24¢ to 31¢ higher than the world price on diesel. There is more the government could do to provide relief to Canadians and lower that price even further. Why will the Liberals not do it?

Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Liberal
“The Prime Minister already cut diesel costs by more than 20 cents a litre permanently through the carbon tax. We also paused the fuel tax. We know diesel is important to our economy.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, the very first action the Prime Minister took was to reduce diesel costs by more than 20¢ a litre, and that was a permanent cut. We are talking about the carbon tax. Then we had the suspension that is currently in place. We understand the importance of diesel in the economy.

Jeremy Patzer, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley

Conservative
“I support this bill because it lowers federal fuel taxes. High diesel prices are hurting farmers and making food and goods more expensive. The government should pass this bill and cut fuel taxes even more.”
  • A repeated line

    “Farmers cannot pass that cost on.”

    Said 3 times by 2 members since September 22.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour and a privilege to rise on behalf of the great people of southwest and west central Saskatchewan. Before I begin, I will mention that I will be splitting my time with the member for Calgary Skyview. Back home in southwest and west central Saskatchewan, the harvest is, according to the Government of Saskatchewan data, about 97% to 98% complete, which basically means that people are looking to clean up the sloughs they had to leave because they are still a little too green or a few areas of their fields need to be cleaned up a bit later. By and large, the harvest is complete. I want to say thanks and send a big congratulations to all the farmers back home who have completed another harvest season. It is definitely not without its challenges. We have the diesel prices, which we we are dealing with today. We had a lovely three inches of rain in the middle of harvest that put people, in some cases as much as 10 days out of the field, having to wait for the fields to dry up so they can get back to harvesting again. We will never complain about getting rain, but that was certainly something we were not anticipating. Nevertheless, we will take rain whenever we can get it. I would give them another quick congratulations. When we look at the prairie economy, in Saskatchewan, in particular, but this would be true of Manitoba and of Alberta, the manufacturing capacity we have in Saskatchewan is largely based on agricultural manufacturing. I am from a farming community called Frontier. My parents farmed south of Frontier. We have two success stories in Frontier. The first one is Friggstad Manufacturing. Friggstad Manufacturing started off making air seeders, cultivators and various farm implements in Frontier. Olaf Friggstad was the visionary behind it. The Friggstad family, including Olaf and his brothers, some family members, his sons and his nephews, got into the family business and created a terrific company. It was eventually bought out by Flexi-Coil and relocated to Saskatoon. Then replacing that, there was a brief period of Talon Tools operating out of the plant, but then Honey Bee Manufacturing replaced it. Honey Bee Manufacturing, to this day, is still operating in Frontier. It has doubled the shop capacity it took over when it bought the plant location. It exports combine headers around the world and has done very well. There are many other successful farming operations that have become manufacturing products. Honey Bee started in a shop. The Honey brothers made a big tractor and created swathers and headers. They had the idea and started in their own shop before they moved to the plant in Frontier. When we look around the province, there are many great companies in existence. I think of companies like Schulte, Seed Hawk and Väderstad. In Swift Current, there is S3 as well, which is across multiple provinces. It even has some operations in the United States. It does very well. We have a very unique irrigation project in Saskatchewan. I mentioned Lake Diefenbaker in a question earlier. I want to talk about a smaller project. There is a water reservoir called Duncairn Dam. Out of that, they irrigate toward a little community called Rush Lake, a small town in Saskatchewan. They irrigate from Duncairn Dam. They built this a long time ago, long before we had sophisticated equipment. They are able to channel irrigation to get all the way down to Rush Lake from Duncairn. It is probably about 50 kilometres of channels to get all the way to Rush Lake from Duncairn. It is flood irrigation that happens there, and they produce at least 30,000 hay bales in a given year. There are people growing hay crops. There is a bit of grain and cereal crops in there as well. It is mostly used by ranchers to grow the hay that they need to get their crops off. The Rush Lake hay bales are definitely a local legend. Everybody knows about the Rush Lake hay flats, and that is what it is largely used for. My family has benefited from this in the past. My uncle Darcy and my grandpa Albert owned some plots in the Rush Lake hay flats. Everybody in the area knows about the Rush Lake hay bales and what that represents for the area. It is a success story of what modern prairie farming ingenuity actually entails. When we look at all of this, what is the common thread to Bill C-38, which we are debating here today? This is about the Canadian fuel affordability act, which would remove some of the federal tax on fuel. Diesel fuel, as I said earlier, drives the national economy, such as the machinery used to pull a Friggstad air seeder or cultivator, which I did on my farm growing up. I proudly drove our 9280 Case and pulled a Friggstad cultivator, and we had a Friggstad air drill. Our header for our combine was a Honey Bee header, so we supported the local economy that way, but the diesel fuel that powered this equipment was very important, and that is what this motion is about here today. I was talking to some of the producers in my area. Back in April, the price of diesel went from $1.38 to $1.95 for the farm bulk price in seven days. At the end of April, when farmers were planning to get their crops in the field, they were looking to purchase the fuel that they needed to get through seeding season, and the price went from $1.38 to $1.95. That is a direct hit to the bottom lines of our farmers, and that is a cost that farmers cannot pass on. Grain farmers cannot pass that cost on; they have to pay whatever the current price is. There is no relief for them. The only relief that does exist is that they can get an exemption on GST. They have to pay the GST up front, but they can get that back. That does not change the fact that they were paying $1.95 in April, right at the peak of seeding season in Saskatchewan. Let us fast-forward to September. From the middle of September to the end of September, the price for diesel was about $2.25 a litre. It kind of fluctuated from there down to about $1.90, right at the peak of harvest season. I was talking to some producers. One farmer I spoke to had used 100,000 litres of fuel to get through harvest. His combines, the tractors that he uses to pull the grain carts in the field, the semi-trucks that he uses to haul the grain from the field back to the bins or maybe to the elevator or to the local terminal all use diesel fuel. I look at $2.25 a litre in the middle of harvest; that is what our producers are having to deal with. I am talking to farmers who have had to basically budget a doubling in the price of fuel in order for them to operate their farms. When they are trying to forecast for next year, they are already looking at the price of fuel and understanding they are going to have to write an even higher number in there to get the crop in the ground in April and May this coming year. That is what our farmers are facing here today. That is why we had a motion. The government voted against it shamefully and defeated our opposition day motion that we had a few weeks ago, speaking to the diesel price. We are approximately 24¢ per litre higher than the United States on average and 31¢ per litre higher than the world average. That is what our farmers and our producers have to deal with and what they are faced with. It is not because of something extraordinary that is happening here. It is because of other federal taxes. I will applaud the government here today for this bill extending a bit of fuel tax relief to our farmers, producers and truckers, to make sure that they can have a little more cost certainty in getting things done. However, the government can go so much further. There is so much more that it can do, to provide that meaningful relief. We had that opposition day motion before the House. The government voted against it shamefully. It is ridiculous that its members would do that. Again, this is how it directly impacts the price of food: If I am going to the grocery store to buy groceries, the groceries do not just magically appear at the shelf. Everything gets to the grocery stores and everything gets to the clothing stores. Winter is coming up in Saskatchewan, so all the kids’ ski pants, jackets, toques, mitts and sports equipment get to the store. They were brought in on a truck that went down Highway 1, through my riding, to get to wherever they are going. Whether they came up from the States or came in from a port, they came in on a truck and were transported across this country. The fuel prices in Canada are skyrocketing, and there is still more that the government could do to provide that relief. The House could do those things that would actually help to bring down the cost of essentials for Canadians, whether it is food, fuel, fertilizer or kids’ winter clothes that they need to be able to get through the winter or the sports equipment that they need to be able to have a little bit of fun. Also, lots of parents drive diesel-powered vehicles, SUVs or trucks. That extra 24¢ to 31¢ a litre is impacting the ability of Canadians to just enjoy a few nice little things like playing hockey or playing volleyball.

John-Paul Danko, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas

Liberal
“Farming is a hard business with a lot of uncertainty. But the Canadian government is not causing the rise in diesel prices. Wars around the world are driving up fuel costs everywhere. I want the member to admit that.”
  • A repeated line

    “Our government also removed the requirement for provinces and territories to have a consumer-facing carbon price.”

    Said 7 times by 5 members since May 26.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member opposite’s speech, learning some more about farming in rural Saskatchewan. I found that really interesting, very much acknowledging that agriculture is a very difficult industry with very thin margins and a lot of uncertainty. There is uncertainty in commodity pricing for what is sold, but also uncertainty in inputs and uncertainty in weather. I have a lot of respect for farmers who, day in and day out, find a way to make ends meet and do the job that they care so passionately about. Of course, our government removed the consumer carbon tax, which is a permanent reduction in the cost of fuel. However, I do take issue with the presumption that it is the Government of Canada that is causing the global increase in diesel fuel prices. The United States’ war against Iran and the ongoing war by Russia against Ukraine are primarily the global cause of the increase in diesel pricing in Canada as they are in the United States and around the world. Will the member opposite acknowledge that?

Jeremy Patzer, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley

Conservative
“Gas in Canada costs 24 cents more per litre than in the United States and 31 cents more than the world average. Government policies like carbon taxes and fuel rules cause these high prices. The government needs to do more to lower fuel costs for Canadians.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, if the member had truly paid attention to my speech, he would know that I said, and this was written in our previous motion, that it is 24¢ per litre higher than the United States, across the border, and 31¢ higher than the world average. The war, absolutely, has something to do with the cost of what Canadians are paying at the pump, but 31¢ a litre higher than the global average is ridiculous. That shows that there is something happening here in Canada. It is things like the industrial carbon tax. This member talked about repealing the consumer carbon tax, which people paid at the pumps and was added on to all kinds of products that people could not see. It was baked into what they paid for food and things like that. There is more that the Liberals could do. They have hidden it. They have also added the Liberal fuel standards, which are driving up the cost of diesel and driving up the cost of production in this country. Those are things that the government controls. These are things that the government could repeal. It is not going to do it. The government even has a new Liberal member from Saskatchewan and all that he has managed to deliver in his time in office is scurvy to the people in northern Saskatchewan, which is absolutely ridiculous. The current government could do more to provide relief for Canadians. I expect it to do more, and so do Canadians.

Tako Van Popta, Langley Township—Fraser Heights

Conservative

Linked statement

“Diesel prices went up by 15% recently, showing our economy has serious problems. Cutting the fuel tax helps, but the Liberals keep offering temporary fixes instead of solving real issues.”
  • Question or 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
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I was listening to my colleague from Saskatchewan give a speech about temporary reduction of the fuel excise tax. Some of the issues that he raised show us that there are fundamental problems to Canada’s economy. What we are hearing from these Liberals time and time again are temporary, short-term, band-aid solutions to what are really fundamental problems. This bill would reduce the fuel tax by 10¢. My colleague just talked about diesel prices going up 15% or more in a very short period of time. I know we are in the same party and he is probably going to think the same way I do. Is he not getting a little tired of the Liberals talking about temporary, band-aid solutions when there are fundamental problems that need to be addressed?

Jeremy Patzer, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley

Conservative
“I support this bill because it gives Canadians short-term relief from high fuel costs. But it is only a quick fix. The government collects far more money in taxes now than it did in 2020, yet life has only gotten more expensive. We need bigger, lasting changes to fix that.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 24 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. Every single time that we get up in this House, it seems that we are addressing another Liberal failure. We passed Bill C-5 quickly because the government wanted us to help it pass quickly. That was a bill to help the government get around previous bad Liberal laws. However, that was not enough. The Liberals need Bill C-39 now. Bill C-5 did not do enough, so they created Bill C-39. Now, this House is actually dealing with Bill C-39 as well to deal with other systemic Liberal failures. Bill C-38 would provide temporary relief for Canadians. It would be a short-term, welcome measure, but there is more structural, substantive relief that the government could provide to Canadians. The Liberals have increased government revenue, from 2020 to now, from about $380 billion to over $500 billion. Ask any Canadian what they have gotten for that massive increase in government revenue from these guys: nothing. They have gotten higher prices. Everything is more expensive in Canada since 2020, thanks to these guys. The Liberals are hauling in way more money, and yet they are delivering nothing for Canadians. It is shameful.

Amanpreet Gill, Calgary Skyview

Conservative
“This bill does not do enough to help Canadians. Pausing the fuel tax for only a few months just delays higher costs for drivers, truckers, and farmers. I want the government to change this bill to cut fuel taxes until at least Canada Day 2027, remove the GST on fuel, and permanently cancel the industrial carbon tax.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, let me begin by acknowledging the obvious: Suspending the federal fuel excise tax for a few more months will provide some relief, but this bill fails to provide any real long-term solutions for Canadians and the challenges they face today. Conservatives have been pushing this for a long time, but once again, we see the Liberal government take our idea, then fail to properly execute it. Bill C-38 would extend the temporary suspension only until January 31, 2027, meaning Canadians would eventually face the return of the full tax. The government is presenting a temporary pause followed by a scheduled tax increase and calling it an affordability plan. That is not a plan. It is just delaying what comes next, just like all the inflation they caused. Canadians are still skipping meals because of it. Fuel is not a luxury in Canada. Our country is massive and our cities continue to expand, meaning many residents must travel a considerable distance between their homes and workplaces. Transit is not an option for every shift worker, tradesperson, health care worker or parent. Many families need two vehicles simply to manage work, school, appointments and their children’s activities. When the government taxes fuel, it is increasing the cost of everything transported in this country. Groceries, building materials and medical supplies arrive by truck. The equipment used by contractors and energy workers runs on fuel. Higher transportation costs move through the supply chain until they appear on the receipt paid by the consumer. Canada’s truck drivers are essential to our economy. They transport our food, fuel, building materials, agricultural products and countless other goods that Canadians depend on every single day. Without truckers, grocery store shelves would empty, construction projects would stall and businesses across this country would struggle to operate. How can a trucking company plan its expenses, negotiate contracts, hire employees or invest in new equipment when the government provides no lasting certainty about fuel taxation? I have had the pleasure to meet with representatives of multiple trucking companies operating in my home of Calgary, such as Kuldip Sandhu from Syndicate Transport, Inderjit Sangha from Rig Logistics Inc. and Randhir Brar from New Way Trucking. Each of these companies employs over 400 truckers who do the vital service of delivering the food all Canadians need. We all rely on their hard work and it is time for the government to show them the appreciation they deserve with a real long-term tax break on diesel. We need it now. The trucking industry does not operate on a short-term schedule. Businesses make investments that last years. Owners take out loans, maintain expensive equipment, pay insurance premiums and compete for contracts in an increasingly challenging market. These are not expenses that disappear when a government tax holiday expires. I know for a fact that even large trucking companies are struggling to stay in business under these conditions and they are facing increasing operating costs. Let us think of the small owner-operators who are hard-working and are working long hours just to cover the cost of diesel, maintenance, insurance and financing. What does that leave them to take home to their families? Nothing. Owner-operators are vital to this industry, such as Harjinder Grewal, a hard-working Calgary father being punished by high diesel prices and who deserves real action to address this crisis. When diesel prices rise, the impact is immediate. When freight rates fail to keep pace with those expenses, the trucker is left absorbing the differences. When a trucker can no longer afford to operate, it is not just one business that suffers but also a family, a local employer and potentially an entire supply chain. Bill C-38 is nowhere near enough. The government wants Canadians to believe that extending the temporary suspension of the federal fuel excise tax is a meaningful solution to the affordability crisis. While any reductions in fuel costs are welcome and we support them, we must ask a simple question: What happens when the temporary relief ends? This is why Bill C-38 falls short. It treats fuel affordability as a temporary political inconvenience instead of as one part of the growing, broader cost of living crisis. People in Canada have endured rising mortgage payments, higher rents, expensive groceries and growing utility bills. If suspending the tax would help families in October, it would also help them in February. The timing of this would also cut out relief for some of the hardest-working Canadians: our farmers. The tax would go up right when they need diesel the most, for spring seeding and the hard work they will put in all summer to grow the food we desperately need. The government cannot argue that the tax is harmful enough to suspend now but harmless enough to restore a few months later. Conservatives would take a different approach. We would amend the legislation so relief would last longer and give Canadians meaningful certainty. Conservatives call for the government to remove all federal taxes on gas and diesel until Canada Day 2027 at the earliest. Doing this would save all Canadians up to 25¢ per litre. This may not sound like much, but it adds up. In the end, this would bring as much as $1,000 of savings for the average Canadian family. That amount of money can help feed many struggling families. The tax cut must also include the seven-cent-per-litre clean fuel regulations, the GST and a permanent cancellation of the industrial carbon tax, so Canadians are not forced to pay more for food and fuel. Bill C-38 would not fix any of these issues for the long term. Conservatives are criticizing the bill not because it would lower the tax but because the relief would be too limited and too short-lived. I call on the government to work with the opposition to improve this legislation, extend the relief, remove all scheduled tax increases, stop taxing tax through the GST on fuel, and give families and businesses a certainty that lasts beyond the next political deadline. If the government refuses, then it should at least be honest about what Bill C-38 is. It is not about fixing the affordability crisis facing Canadians. It is about giving the illusion of addressing the crisis.

John-Paul Danko, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas

Liberal
“The Conservatives are missing the big picture by only focusing on diesel and trucking costs. Shipping goods by rail or ship costs much less than by truck. Our government is investing in ports and rail to move cargo more cheaply and save Canadians money.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I am kind of struck that Conservatives often address the issue of the day with this kind of gotcha politics but often miss the big picture. In this case, the member talked a lot about the costs of diesel and trucking, but our government is investing in port infrastructure and in rail infrastructure, because the cost of shipping commodities by rail is half the cost of trucking, and by ship, it is four or five times less. I have some local examples of that. In Hamilton, we are investing in what is called highway H2O, the St. Lawrence Seaway, getting more cargo onto ship traffic and getting trucks off highways. Across the country, we are also investing in rail. Again, I have an example from Hamilton. There is a 50% rebate on steel that is shipped by rail or ship, promoting alternative modes of transportation for cargo other than trucking, which is a real cost savings for Canadians beyond the initial excise tax issue we are talking about right now.

Amanpreet Gill, Calgary Skyview

Conservative
“Truckers deliver our food, but the government is making their work harder and more expensive. We want to cut the tax on diesel fuel for truckers and farmers until Canada Day. I want the government to work with us to do this.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, do people know who delivers food? It is truckers. As I said in my speech, truckers are the lifeblood of our vast country, yet the government is making it harder for them to deliver the food we all need. Conservatives are fighting to give them a tax break on diesel until Canada Day, and we hope the government will work with us to give this break to Canadians, truckers, the whole trucking industry and farmers.

Tako Van Popta, Langley Township—Fraser Heights

Conservative
“This gas tax cut is only temporary. It cuts about ten cents a litre for a few months, and then five cents. I want my colleague to explain if this gives Canadians any real, long-term help with high costs.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, my colleague’s speech on the fuel excise tax temporary relief was very informative. That is the basis of my question: The relief would be just temporary. He should explain to Canadians once again that it would be temporary relief of roughly 10¢ a litre for a few more months, and then it would go down to five cents a litre. Do Canadians take any comfort from this that there is going to be long-term relief to the affordability crisis that is facing us today?

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 151

  1. Government Orders Strengthening Canada's Defence Sector Act 79 statements
  2. Oral Questions Public Services and Procurement 5 statements
  3. Oral Questions Finance 4 statements
  4. Oral Questions The Economy 8 statements
  5. Oral Questions The Environment 2 statements
  6. Oral Questions Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship 15 statements
  7. Oral Questions Canadian Culture and Identity 4 statements
  8. Oral Questions Public Services and Procurement 11 statements
  9. Oral Questions Finance 2 statements
  10. Oral Questions Employment 10 statements
  11. Oral Questions International Trade 7 statements
  12. Oral Questions Finance 8 statements
  13. Oral Questions Small Business 2 statements
  14. Oral Questions The Economy 2 statements
  15. Oral Questions Health 2 statements
  16. Oral Questions Justice 2 statements
  17. Government Orders Government Orders 2 statements
  18. Government Orders Strengthening Canada's Defence Sector Act 44 statements
  19. Private Members' Business Canada Revenue Agency Act 6 statements
  20. Government Orders Canadian Fuel Affordability Act 164 statements
  21. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  22. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  23. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements