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

Carol Anstey, Long Range Mountains

Conservative
“We are not playing games. We are speaking up for Canadians. The federal government can control parts of fuel prices and give people immediate relief right now. We need to do that.”
  • 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
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 44 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is certainly welcome to visit my riding at any time. It is a beautiful riding. What is equally frustrating is when we speak up for Canadians and tell their stories, and then the Liberals tell us we are playing silly partisan games. I find that equally frustrating. There are many components of fuel prices that we can control and that the federal government can offer relief on, and that is exactly what we are talking about. We need to do the things we can do. There are things we can control that would have a direct impact on immediate relief on fuel prices for Canadians. In this current environment, that is extremely important.

Ted Falk, Provencher

Conservative
“Fishers in Newfoundland and Labrador are already facing many problems, and high diesel prices are making their costs even worse. I want the member to explain how these fuel costs are hurting the fishers in her area.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my friend and colleague’s fishers just off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador have been experiencing a lot of challenges lately, not the least of which is the snow crab quota aspirations of the French. Now, they are faced with higher diesel prices, which impact every fisher because those big fishing boats are powered by diesel. They are experiencing a significant increase in their costs as well. I would like the member to maybe extrapolate what that means for her fishers.

Carol Anstey, Long Range Mountains

Conservative
“Fishing is very important to Newfoundland and Labrador. High fuel costs hurt fishers by cutting their profits. Because of these costs, they cannot buy new equipment, hire more workers, or grow their businesses.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, yes, the fishing industry is extremely important to Newfoundland and Labrador. The food fishery is another component of Newfoundland and Labrador that is extremely important. These are costs that are directly impacting these operations. Ultimately, that means that fishers cannot hire more people for their operations to expand the fishing industry. They cannot invest in new equipment. It has direct impacts, as it diminishes their profit margins. It also inhibits them from investing and growing their operations and providing more opportunities in a vital and extremely important part of our economy in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Madawaska—Restigouche

Liberal
“The member says she wants to support small businesses and farms. But she voted against the budget that helped them write off costs, handle tariffs, and innovate. I want her to explain why her votes do not match her words.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my colleague’s speech felt somewhat contradictory to me. She spoke about the importance of supporting our small and medium-sized enterprises, and farms in particular. However, when the 2025 budget was tabled, she voted against it, despite the fact that it included an investment superdeduction that would allow businesses to recover the cost of their investments more quickly. She also voted against various measures to help offset the impact of tariffs and initiatives to support innovation within our small and medium-sized enterprises. How can she stand up in the House this evening and talk about the importance of supporting our small and medium-sized enterprises and helping them cope with various costs, when, time and again, she has voted against the very measures designed to help them? I find it difficult to reconcile her voting record with the position she shared with us this evening in her speech.

Carol Anstey, Long Range Mountains

Conservative
“More businesses are closing than opening in Canada. Liberal policies are hurting small businesses. Conservatives support this bill because it helps small businesses survive.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 47 of 100

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

    See full analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 33 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

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business recently produced a report that talked about the entrepreneurial drought in this country, with more businesses closing than opening. The results are that the Liberal policies are not supporting small and medium-sized businesses. That is not my opinion; that is just the reality. These are the measures that we as Conservatives believe support small and medium-sized businesses, and that is why we are advocating for them.

Ted Falk, Provencher

Conservative
“Conservatives will vote for this bill because it gives Canadians some relief at the gas pump. But it does not do enough. It saves drivers about five dollars a tank, and it only cuts four cents a litre on diesel when prices are up 80%. High diesel prices make groceries and shipping cost more for everyone. The government should remove the GST from fuel, scrap the carbon taxes, and give real relief to truckers and farmers.”
  • A repeated line

    “Including the industrial carbon tax and the clean fuel standard.”

    Said 10 times by 9 members since April 28.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies. Before I begin my speech, I would like to recognize our parliamentary staff who are sitting here late into the evening, the clerks, the recorders, the Sergeant-at-Arms and the technicians, as well as the Parliamentary Protective Service. I want to thank them for putting in the extra time to make sure that Canadians can exercise their democracy in the House. I am honoured to speak to Bill C-38, the Canadian fuel affordability act. I would like to start where a lot of Canadians start their day, which is at the gas pump and the gas checkout. At the end of September, a litre of diesel across this country cost $2.60, according to Natural Resources Canada. In the weeks before that, diesel had peaked at about $2.75 a litre nationally, which is about 80% above the roughly $1.40 to $1.50 that Canadians were paying a year ago. That is an 80% increase in 12 months. Let me say this plainly. Conservatives will vote for this bill. Any measure that lets Canadians keep more of their own money at the pump, we will support. We supported it when it was proposed, and we support it today, but if the government expects a round of applause, I would remind the House how we got here. When the fuel excise tax was suspended in April, the pause was set to expire on Labour Day. That was the plan, to put taxes back on gas and diesel just as Canadians were heading into the fall with prices still soaring. It took months of pressure from this side of the House, the Leader of the Opposition, truckers, farmers and families before the government changed course. I am pleased it did, but Canadians should not have to drag relief out of Ottawa one reluctant extension at a time. Let me tell the House and the Canadians who are watching what this bill does. It extends the suspension of the federal fuel excise tax until January 31, 2027. It then cuts the regular rates in half until the end of March, with full rates returning on April 1. For the average driver, that means about five dollars saved on a typical 50-litre tank of gasoline. That is it. It is still something, but it is only five dollars per fill. Let us look at what we are up against here. Stats Canada reported yesterday that inflation rose to 3.1% in September, driven by gasoline prices that were up 27.8% from a year ago. Without gasoline inflation, it was about 2.2%. In other words, the cost of living crisis is not some mystery. One input is dragging the whole bucket up. Energy prices are up 19%, and fuel oil and other fuels are up 57.8%, which is how much more a family in Atlantic Canada will pay to stay warm this winter. Grocery prices are still up 33% from September of 2020. Families have not recovered from that. Now they are being asked to again absorb a fuel shock on top of it. Here is where the bill falls short. Gasoline is up about 28% from a year ago, and diesel is up 80%. The excise tax relief is 10¢ a litre on gasoline, but only four cents a litre on diesel. That is four cents against a price of $2.60, which is about a penny and a half on every dollar of fuel. For the farmers who produce our food, the people who move this country’s food, fuel and building materials, and the contractors who build our infrastructure and homes, four pennies a litre is a rounding error. The Liberals need to get serious. Consider the long-haul trucker. That is a real person driving an 18-wheeler. A long-haul truck holds about 1,000 litres of diesel fuel. Back in March, with prices well below where they are now, filling one in Toronto would cost roughly $2,300, and that was about a $700 increase from the prior year. At today’s prices, it is about $2,600, which equates to more than $1,000 per tank above last year. What does this bill save on that fill-up? It is about $40 on $2,600. It is only 40 bucks on 1,000 litres. It is still 40 bucks, but that is all it is. I want the House to hear the voices behind those numbers. One Ontario owner-operator told reporters his fuel costs have risen by about $1,000 per truck every month and that his credit cards are filling up. His trucks haul food to northern communities. A small business owner is putting the groceries for remote northern communities on his credit card while the government calls four cents a litre relief. Consider the Maritimes and the Atlantic provinces. Trucking associations say that 90% of the food, forestry products and manufactured goods used in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick move there by truck. There’s no other way to get them there. The pain is uneven. Last week, the average fuel price ran from $2.94 a litre to $2.47 a litre in Grande Prairie. Consider the farmer who is in the field right now. The Grain Growers of Canada calculated that a single combine running through a 30-day harvest costs an extra $15,120 in fuel. That is one machine. Farmers cannot pass that cost along because the market sets the price of their crop and the commodities that they produce. By my math, the excise relief on that same combine is worth about $670, roughly 4% of that added cost. It does not stop at the farm gate. Researchers at Dalhousie have modelled a half-point to seven-tenths of a point bump in grocery inflation if elevated diesel prices persist, not increase but persist. A tax on fuel is a tax on everything that moves by truck, which is everything on a grocery store shelf and everything in new homes. What would real relief look like? Conservatives have been clear. We would extend the full excise holiday until Canada Day 2027. We would remove the GST from fuel purchases. At current prices, the GST accounts for roughly 13¢ of every litre of diesel, a tax collected on top of a tax. The higher the price goes, the more Ottawa takes in. We would permanently scrap the industrial carbon tax and the clean fuel standard, which the Leader of the Opposition has called “carbon tax 2.0”. Conservatives calculate that, together, these measures would save Canadians up to 25¢ a litre, as much as $1,200 a year per families. That is what real relief looks like. That is a long way from the four cents a litre that the Liberal government is offering in the bill. Canadians deserve to know why this country, one of the greatest energy producers in the world, is paying so much to fill a diesel tank. The Leader of the Opposition has pointed out that Canadian diesel prices are about 32¢ a litre higher than in the United States, our neighbours to the south. Conservatives say that Canada produces enough diesel to meet national demand but transportation bottlenecks leave some regions dependent on U.S. imports. We should be using our own energy to power our own people. Canada should be refining and delivering its own fuel, not leaving truckers and farmers at the mercy of global pressures. Last week, we gave the House a chance to act. On October 7, Conservatives tabled a motion calling for an end to all federal taxes on diesel fuel until Canada Day. It was defeated. Only Conservatives voted in favour. The Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP all voted against. Canadians should remember that vote. When the people who produce and move our food ask for help, those parties in the House said no. As for what comes next, the Minister of Finance has said that whether relief continues past March will depend on global conflict, oil prices and the state of federal finances, without naming any price threshold or formula. Farmers cannot plan a planting season around waiting and seeing. Truckers and contractors cannot price a contract that way. Families cannot budget on hope. After a decade of Liberal government, Canadians are tired. They are tired of being told that tax relief is a gift from Ottawa rather than their own money being returned. They are tired of half measures and of relief that arrives late, shrinks on schedule and comes with no plan. Here is the Conservative plan. We will vote for the bill because of the current affordability crisis, as Canadians need every cent they can get, but we will keep fighting for the rest, for no GST on fuel, no industrial carbon tax, no clean fuel regulations and a Canada that produces and refines its own diesel. A tax on fuel is a tax on everything, and Canadians have already paid enough. To the truckers sleeping in cabs on the long road home, to the farmers in the combine long after sunset and to the parents doing math at the grocery store or gas station, we see them. They should be assured that Conservatives are fighting for their jobs. We are fighting for their families, and we are fighting for them.

John-Paul Danko, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas

Liberal
“Fuel costs are hurting families, but biofuel rules help farmers and create jobs, like at a plant in Hamilton. We removed the carbon tax for consumers. I want the member to say exactly how much per litre the industrial carbon tax adds to the price of fuel.”
  • 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

Mr. Speaker, I think we all recognize that the cost of fuel is impacting affordability for families across Canada. The member mentioned biofuel standards, but what he did not talk about is how those standards are supporting the farming industry and also the processing industry. In Hamilton, we have a fairly substantial biofuel plant. Those biofuel standards are an important part of providing business opportunity. He also talked about the industrial carbon pricing. Of course, our government removed the consumer carbon tax, but I just wanted to give him the opportunity to explain exactly how much per litre the industrial carbon pricing contributes to the cost of fuel in Canada.

Ted Falk, Provencher

Conservative
“This bill only saves four cents a litre on diesel and ten cents on gasoline. That is not enough to help farmers, truckers, and contractors who cannot afford life right now. The Liberals voted against admitting there is an affordability crisis, yet now they are looking at a fuel affordability bill. That is hypocritical.”
  • 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
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 18 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

Mr. Speaker, the issue that we are looking at today is Bill C-38, which proposes four cents a litre on diesel fuel alone and 10¢ a litre on gasoline. Like I said before, four cents a litre on diesel fuel to farmers, truckers or contractors is a rounding error. The crisis that folks in manufacturing and transportation are facing is affordability. The Liberals today had an opportunity to recognize, through our motion, that for the past 11 years we have been governed here in Canada by a Liberal government, and that today, we are in an affordability crisis. The Liberals said no. All the other parties agreed that we are in an affordability crisis. They had the opportunity to say no, and I find it really hypocritical that today we are studying what is known as the Canadian fuel affordability act.

Mel Arnold, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies

Conservative
“I want the member to explain how higher fuel costs make farming too expensive. How does that raise the price of food for Canadians?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member for Provencher, if he could, to further explain how some of those costs on the farms and at the farm gates are becoming almost insurmountable for some of those farmers who are working their hardest to put food on Canadian dinner plates, whether it be grains, beef or other products. How is this increased cost in fuel, which we are seeing impact things all the way down the line, impacting the actual cost on Canadian dinner plates from coast to coast to coast?

Ted Falk, Provencher

Conservative
“The price of diesel fuel almost doubled this past year. Farmers must absorb these higher costs because they cannot set the market prices for their crops. At the same time, truckers and food processors pass high fuel costs along to shoppers, which makes food more expensive. We should pass this bill to lower fuel taxes.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is true that farmers have to absorb the cost of increased diesel fuel prices, and they have increased almost 100%. In other words, for Canadians watching today, the price of diesel fuel has almost doubled in this last year, and farmers have no choice. They have to put diesel fuel into their combines, trucks and tractors, and they also have to then have that product shipped to the elevator and shipped to a rail yard before it can be sent to a processing facility, where it gets processed and manufactured into food products, which again get shipped with a transport truck across the highway, burning diesel fuel at $2.60 a litre. The food products finally get delivered to a warehouse, and from a warehouse, they will get picked up one more time by a semi-truck and delivered to a retailer for distribution or for sale to the public. All of those activities require the use of diesel fuel, and when diesel fuel has increased by almost 100% in the last year for the farmer, there is nothing he can do about it, because his prices for his products are commodity prices. They are market-based. However, for the transport companies and for the processors, the price of increased fuel and energy costs are actually being put onto the backs of consumers who are buying those products, because they are just moved along, and the farmers absorb it. Processors and truckers do their best to pass those costs along to the consumer, the end user.

Mel Arnold, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies

Conservative
“This bill lowers the fuel tax, but it does not do enough. The government caused this high cost of living by blocking energy projects for 11 years. I want all federal fuel taxes removed until at least Canada Day 2027.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise as the representative of Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies. As I have noted previously, it is a riding that stretches from the continental divide in Yoho National Park, through the lakes and highlands of the Shuswap, to the ranching grasslands of Kamloops. It is a total of roughly 450 kilometres of Trans-Canada Highway, from east to west, and an area where people rely on vehicles that can be on the road all day, and sometimes well into the night. I know this first-hand after having traversed this great riding from end to end for months, from before the time I was elected as a federal representative in April 2025 up to and including just a couple of days ago. Today, I rise to speak to Bill C-38, the Canadian fuel affordability act. We are here late tonight debating this bill. The bill proposes to reduce the federal excise tax on gas and diesel until January 31, 2027. I propose that we are here debating more than a reduction in the fuel excise tax, and that we are here debating the Liberal government’s record on affordability over its 11-year tenure in government. This is an affordability crisis created by 11 years of Liberal government. While Bill C-38 proposes to reduce and remove the fuel excise tax until January 31, it would be a small relief for some and would only go until January 31. Canadians need so much more relief. That is why Conservatives are calling for the removal of all federal taxes on fuel until at least Canada Day 2027, and Canadians need so much more. Canadians expect their government to govern in a manner that keeps the cost of living under control and provides the services needed to help keep their country safe and sustainable. We, as elected representatives, have a duty to those residents of this great country to deliver on their expectations. However, what Canadians are paying to live under the Liberals has grown beyond the means of many. Of course, the Liberals will try to blame this on all sorts of things, like Donald Trump, the trade tariffs, the war in Ukraine and other worldly events. When it comes down to it, however, it is Liberal policies over the last 11 years that have brought on this affordability crisis. If the Liberals had not blocked progress of resource development through bills like Bill C-48 and Bill C-69, and promoted an antidevelopment agenda, Canada could have been in a position where these worldly events mattered less and we would be more self-reliant on our own energy and resources. After 11 years, we are here with a government desperately trying to develop trade with other countries, lagging behind in the development, processing and sales of liquefied natural gas and other resources the rest of the world is looking for. We have had 11 years of the Liberal government kneecapping the potential wealth growth of this country. Tonight, we have a Liberal government trying to look like the saviour from its own policies and legislation. People should not be fooled into thinking this is a new government. Many of the same architects behind those debilitating policies are still at those same seats at the cabinet table, pushing the same ideologies and not wanting to admit they are the ones responsible for the growing deficits and debt service costs that Canadians of future generations will be forced to pay. Here we are debating this tax relief bill tonight, October 20, 2026, like it is the Liberal government’s idea. However, we have a government trying to fool people into believing it is sparing them from the high costs that it has caused. In April of this year, Conservatives brought forward a motion in this House calling for the federal fuel excise tax to be removed for the rest of 2026, along with broader relief from federal costs on gasoline and diesel. It is real relief that could have been in place already had the Liberals not voted against it. As I met with people at home in the beautiful riding of Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies over the summer months, and even more in recent weeks, one of the first topics of every discussion was almost always the cost of living and affordability for ordinary Canadians. When I visited food banks, I learned that some of them are seeing increases in reliant families and increases in demand ranging from 200% to 500%. The shelves that were once being stocked by volunteers are now seeing some of those same volunteers coming in for help with their grocery needs. When I talk to seniors having to decide between putting food on the table and getting a gift for a grandchild, or parents trying to stretch two family incomes to buy food and shelter for their family, or potential parents who are choosing not to have children because they do not think they can afford it, my heart aches for them. Life was not like that in Canada, not even during the global recession in the mid-2000s, and it does not need to be like that anymore. We have so much potential here in Canada, and I believe Canadians will see that potential and see that a Conservative government is what is needed to truly deal with the affordability crisis, a government that would unleash the potential of our greatest resources in this country. I do not just mean the natural resources in and on our lands and waters. I mean the people of this great country, who are willing and ready to build on the opportunity and resources we share. They can see the potential, and they know that the government has been holding back that potential. I see fuel costs at three dollars per litre for diesel at home as I drive down the highway from one end of my riding to the other. Truckers have to pay that fuel price just to get goods to grocery stores. Parents have to pay that price when they take their kids to a soccer game and even when they go to the grocery store. This has to change, and it has to be through measures that are more substantial than what the Liberals are putting forward as their idea of a saviour-type move. As I close off tonight, it is getting late here in Ottawa, near 11 p.m., and I know there are people back home who need to know that my Conservative colleagues and I will fight late into the night and beyond to bring affordability relief from the Liberal government’s ever-increasing cost of living. Those late-night watchers go beyond my wife and my family. They are the people across the Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies riding and across the country who are depending on us, the official opposition, to keep reckless government spending under control and to bring them real opportunity and affordability. I thank everyone watching for caring about our country and for contacting my colleagues and I about their affordability concerns. It is their words that matter most to us on this side of the House. We are here for them late into the night. I thank everyone for watching and listening and for their support. We are, after all, here for them.

John-Paul Danko, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas

Liberal
“Our government did not cause high energy costs. Global markets caused them. Under our leadership, Canada has record oil and gas production, new pipelines, and record investment. I want the member opposite to admit what is really happening.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 44 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, honestly, sometimes it is difficult to understand whether members opposite really appreciate the difference between their rhetoric and reality. Let us look at the past 11 years of Liberal government policy. Right now, there is record high oil and gas production in Canada. Our government made the Trans Mountain pipeline happen, and we are looking at an expansion to double that capacity, diversifying Canada’s oil exports to the Pacific. There is LNG phase one and phase two, record exports, record expansions, and investment in the Canadian oil and gas sector. It is fairly detached from reality to suggest that Liberal policies in Canada, of our government, have caused the global increase in energy costs. That is deliberately misrepresenting and perhaps misunderstanding the global pressures on the global commodity market for energy. Would the member opposite like to comment on what is happening in the real world?

Mel Arnold, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies

Conservative
“The Liberal government has hurt Canadians for 11 years. Energy investments should have happened a decade ago, but the government held them back. Now, youth unemployment is at record highs, and young people cannot find work. The government is responsible for these problems.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would absolutely love to respond to what is happening in the real world. The real world is here in Canada, where Canadians have been kneecapped by the Liberal government for 11 years. The member talked about the investment that is happening right now, the record investment. That record investment could have happened more than 10 years ago had the Liberal government believed in the people of Canada. He talked about other records. Well, we are seeing record high youth unemployment rates, record high numbers of young people in this country who cannot find work. We have seen this. What the member has missed, because he has not been here for the full 11 years, is that his government is responsible for the reality, this real world, in Canada.

Kurt Holman, London—Fanshawe

Conservative
“People across Canada are struggling to afford things, including the tax on diesel. Can my colleague share examples of people in his riding who are dealing with this?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, this discussion regarding Bill C-38 and the tax relief on diesel is one example showing that the affordability crisis is happening all over Canada. I am wondering if my colleague could mention any examples from his riding of constituents who are affected by the affordability crisis.

Mel Arnold, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies

Conservative
“People in my area cannot afford basic needs. Former food bank volunteers now need food help, seniors are sleeping in their cars to afford rent, and high fuel costs make groceries too expensive. The government causes these high living costs and denies there is a problem.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, I have visited food banks that are seeing their previous volunteers now coming in for assistance. I am seeing seniors who cannot afford to live in a rental unit for the full month. They are living in the rental unit for three weeks and living in their car for a week because they cannot afford the fourth week of rent. Under the devastating impacts of the Liberal cost of living crisis, it goes on and on. As I mentioned, there are young families choosing not to have children because they do not think they can afford it. We are seeing record high prices at the grocery stores as a result of fuel costs from farming and getting farm products into the processors and onto grocery store shelves. These are just some of the examples, and I am sure members from across this country are hearing about them, but the Liberals will continue to deny it.

Vince Gasparro, Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)

Liberal
“We all agree Canadians need relief. I want the member to explain why he is stretching out this debate instead of passing the bill quickly.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for delivering his speech with such enthusiasm. We all agree that Canadians need relief. I am curious to know why the hon. member thinks it is a good idea to be extending this debate for such a long period of time when we could be delivering relief more quickly. Maybe he could explain that to Canadians.

Mel Arnold, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies

Conservative
“I want to ask the member why the Liberals voted against these same fuel tax cuts months ago when the Conservatives proposed them.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that is an admirable question. I will turn that right back at him and ask why Liberal members voted against the measures that we as Conservatives put forward through motions in this House. They voted against them months ago, months before the Liberals even brought this bill to the table. Why?

Kurt Holman, London—Fanshawe

Conservative

Linked statement

“I support this bill because it pauses the fuel tax and saves people money. But this relief ends too soon. The government should extend the tax cut at least until Canada Day, remove the GST from fuel, and review other rules that make gas more expensive.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for The Eastern Peninsulas. I rise today to speak to Bill C-38, the Canadian fuel affordability act. For months, Conservatives have urged the Liberal government not to raise taxes on gas and diesel while Canadians are struggling with the cost of living. This spring, we called for the federal taxes on fuel to be lifted to give Canadians some breathing room at the pump. The Liberals responded by pausing only the fuel excise tax and only until Labour Day, just as families were heading back to school and farmers were heading into harvest. We kept pressuring, and only after months of Conservative pressure have the Prime Minister and the Liberals now agreed to delay the tax once again. I am glad the Liberals have come around. Families in London—Fanshawe and across the country will have a little more room in their budgets this winter, and Conservatives are proud of the role we played in making this happen. Let me be clear about what the bill would do. It would delay the tax increase, but only briefly. Beginning February 1, in the middle of an Ontario winter, the tax would start coming back at half the rate. By April 1, Canadians would be paying the full amount again. Relief that runs out in the middle of winter is not enough. However, I will support getting the relief to Canadians, because any relief for working people is welcome. According to the government’s own figures, the extension means that Canadians would continue to save more than five dollars on a typical 50-litre fill-up. For a family that fills up once or twice a week, that is real money. It is grocery money. It is money for a child’s hockey registration. It is money toward a heating bill. However, Canadians deserve to know that under the bill, that money would be scheduled to disappear again in a few short months. There is something else in the bill worth noting. In announcing it, the Liberal government acknowledged that fuel costs are felt across the economy. It named truckers. It named agriculture, housing, construction and delivery. It recognized that when fuel costs go up, the cost of moving food, of building materials and of everyday goods goes up with them. For years, members on this side of the House made exactly that argument, and for years, we were told that fuel taxes had little real impact on affordability. However, the bill is an acknowledgement that we were right. Fuel taxes do matter. Lowering them does help reduce cost pressures throughout the economy. The Liberals originally presented this measure as temporary. They are now extending it because the economic reality has made the case for us. If suspending the tax helps Canadians today, then keeping fuel costs low should remain a priority going forward, not something with an expiry date, because the pressure Canadians are facing has not gone away. Gas prices have risen more than a quarter. Energy costs overall are up by more than 16%. Transportation costs are up nearly 8%, and grocery prices continue to climb. Diesel, which powers the tractors that grow our food and the trucks that deliver it, has risen even more sharply. The Grain Growers of Canada has estimated that fuel for a large combine could cost over $15,000 more this harvest than last. Those costs do not stay on the farm or at the gas station. They show up at the checkout counter. In my own riding of London—Fanshawe, I hear about this constantly. When I hosted a town hall for seniors this spring, the conversation kept coming back to the cost of living. Seniors on fixed incomes told me about stretching every dollar as groceries, housing and everyday expenses kept going up. Many of them were not only worried about themselves. They were worried about their children and grandchildren, with young families working hard and still finding it difficult to get ahead. Last month at my town hall on housing and affordability, we heard those same concerns from Londoners of all ages. When rent or a mortgage takes up so much of the monthly budget, everything else becomes harder to manage: groceries, utilities and the cost of filling up the car to get to work. Again, many worry about the next generation and whether the milestones their parents could plan for, like owning a home, are slipping out of reach. I have said in the House that London is the canary in the coal mine. When the economy goes wrong, Londoners are the first to feel it, and it hits our community the hardest. Fuel costs are no exception. London is closely tied to manufacturing, transportation and the North American supply chain. Our workers commute. Our businesses ship goods. Our families drive. For many people in my riding, fuel is not a choice but a necessity, and when it costs more, London feels it first. This is not a narrow concern. Canadians across this country share it. Polling this summer found that 63% of Canadians opposed bringing the fuel excise tax back in September. That included 62% of Ontarians and 72% of seniors, with clear majorities opposed in every region of the country. Canadians across generations and across provinces agree. When life is this expensive, the federal government should not be adding to the cost of getting to work, heating a home or putting food on the table. Conservatives have been making that case for months, and Canadians have been making it with us. Rather than talking about another temporary pause, I want to use the rest of my time to put forward some ideas for real, lasting relief. First is predictability. Under this bill, this tax would begin coming back in February and return in full in April. Families, farmers and small businesses plan ahead. Spring planting is right around the corner, and many businesses are setting their budgets now. At a minimum, the Prime Minister should extend this relief at least to Canada Day so that Canadians are not facing another cliff during some of the most expensive months of the year. Second, this bill deals with only one of the federal costs layered on top of fuel. The GST is charged on gas and diesel, which means that when prices rise, the federal tax rises with them. Removing the GST on fuel would put more money back in people’s pockets at precisely the moment they need it most. Likewise, the clean fuel regulations add roughly seven cents a litre today, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and that cost is projected to grow. As well, the industrial carbon tax continues to feed into the price of food and goods. If the Prime Minister and the Liberals now accept that fuel costs matter to affordability, then those measures deserve the same scrutiny. Third, we should take a hard look at the long-term picture. Canadians are paying noticeably more for diesel than our American neighbours. Part of the answer is building more capacity here at home, more refining, more storage and a strategic reserve that can protect Canadians from supply disruptions beyond our borders. Global events will always affect prices, but we can make sure Canada is better prepared and less exposed when they do. Canadians are doing their part. They are working hard, raising families, running businesses and adapting to challenges that are often beyond their control. Government cannot remove every one of those challenges, but it can avoid making them harder. This bill shows what is possible when the Liberal government responds to the concerns that Canadians and Conservatives have been raising. I am glad it has come this far, but a delay is not a solution, and Canadians need real relief that brings lower prices, not a pause with an expiry date. Conservatives are proud of our role in securing this relief, and we will continue to push for a more affordable Canada for the families, seniors, workers and businesses of London—Fanshawe and across this country.

Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Madawaska—Restigouche

Liberal
“A Conservative member said tonight that they will support all measures that help Canadians save money. I want to know if my colleague agrees with him. Will the Conservatives support this bill and all our other plans to help with the cost of living?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, earlier this evening, we received some excellent news from a Conservative colleague. I am going to quote him. I took notes so I would not forget. He mentioned that they would support all measures that help Canadians save money. His colleague announced a complete reversal of the Conservative approach of the past 10 years. I would like to hear from my colleague. Does he share the view of his Conservative colleague that the Conservatives will now support affordability measures? Have they finally realized that Canadians expect help to cope with the cost of living? Will they now support us, not only on this particular measure, but on all the other measures we are implementing to address affordability?

Kurt Holman, London—Fanshawe

Conservative
“Canadians need relief from high prices. We should pass this bill to cut taxes on fuel, especially diesel. That will lower the cost of shipping and make groceries cheaper.”
  • 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
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we are looking for relief for Canadians. There is an affordability crisis, but with regard to this bill, Canadians need relief at the pump, especially with diesel prices and the tax on diesel. Therefore, if there is relief by removing taxes on diesel, it will have a ripple effect that will affect the groceries at the grocery store and the goods that are shipped throughout Canada. Hopefully, removing these taxes on diesel would affect the bottom-line prices for Canadians and deal with the affordability crisis.

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