Canadian Fuel Affordability Act

An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act (extension of the federal fuel excise tax relief)

Sponsor

Status

Report stage (House), as of Oct. 6, 2026

Subscribe to a feed (what's a feed?) of speeches and votes in the House related to Bill C-38.

Summary

This is from the published bill.

This enactment amends the Excise Tax Act to extend the temporary suspension of the federal fuel excise tax until January 31, 2027 and to temporarily set the excise tax rates on fuels to 50% of the regular rates for the period beginning on February 1, 2027 and ending on March 31, 2027.

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-38s:

C-38 (2022) An Act to amend the Indian Act (new registration entitlements)
C-38 (2017) An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (exploitation and trafficking in persons)
C-38 (2014) Law Appropriation Act No. 2, 2014-15
C-38 (2012) Law Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act

Debate Summary

line drawing of robot

This is a computer-generated summary of the speeches below. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.

Bill C-38 extends the federal fuel excise tax suspension on gasoline, diesel, and aviation fuel until January 31, 2027. It proposes a 50% tax rate reduction through March 31, 2027, to provide cost relief to Canadians amidst global economic uncertainty and volatile fuel prices.

Liberal

  • Supports extending fuel tax relief: The Liberal party supports Bill C-38 to provide immediate financial relief at the pump, extending the suspension of the federal fuel excise tax to help families and businesses manage the rising cost of living.
  • Mitigating global economic instability: Members argue the bill is necessary to shield Canadians from volatile global fuel prices driven by international conflicts, supply chain disruptions, and new foreign tariffs that are beyond domestic control.
  • Relieving pressure on essential sectors: The party emphasizes that reduced fuel costs support vital industries like agriculture, trucking, and construction while providing essential relief to rural and northern residents who rely heavily on vehicles for daily life.
  • Implementing a gradual tax restoration: Liberals highlight the bill's responsible approach, which maintains a full tax suspension until early 2027 followed by a partial rate reduction to offer predictability and ease the transition for household budgets.

Conservative

  • Support for temporary relief: The party supports Bill C-38 because it provides immediate, temporary relief at the pumps for families and small businesses struggling with the high cost of living.
  • Criticism of phased tax hikes: Members criticize the bill as an insufficient half-measure, arguing that scheduling the return of the fuel tax in early 2027 fails to provide a long-term solution to the affordability crisis.
  • Demand for broader tax cuts: The party urges the government to extend the fuel tax holiday until at least Canada Day 2027 and completely remove all federal fuel taxes, including the GST, industrial carbon tax, and clean fuel regulations.

NDP

  • Opposes the fuel tax suspension: The party opposes Bill C-38, arguing that the fuel tax suspension fails to deliver promised savings to consumers and instead allows oil companies to absorb billions in taxpayer dollars.
  • Advocates for windfall profits tax: New Democrats propose a windfall profits tax on oil and gas giants, with the revenue returned to struggling Canadians as a more effective and targeted form of relief.
  • Calls for renewable energy investment: The party emphasizes that subsidizing fossil fuels creates an opportunity cost, urging the government to invest in cheaper, sustainable energy sources to lower long-term costs and meet climate targets.
  • Links energy to national sovereignty: Members argue that clean energy investments serve as vital security and industrial policies, reducing vulnerability to geopolitical energy manipulation and volatile global oil prices.

Bloc

  • Calls for committee study: Emphasizes the importance of studying the bill in committee to evaluate its effectiveness, hear from expert witnesses, and explore alternative measures.
  • Concerns over untargeted relief: Argues the measure provides broad relief to wealthy consumers who do not need it, rather than targeting support to the lowest-income households.
  • Skepticism on consumer savings: Warns that because fuel demand is inelastic, oil distributors and gas stations are likely to pocket the tax break instead of passing savings to consumers.
  • Prioritizing senior support: Criticizes the government for allocating $5.3 billion to this measure while previously claiming it could not afford to increase Old Age Security for seniors.

Green

  • Supports C-38 with misgivings: The party supports the bill but criticizes it as a temporary relief measure that adds to the federal deficit and risks destabilizing predictable funding for municipal public transit systems.
  • Advocates for tax fairness: May calls for systemic tax reform, including a wealth tax on billionaires and a financial transactions tax, to generate significant revenue for public services and provide relief to the middle class.
  • Imposing windfall profit taxes: The Green Party proposes taxing the excess profits of oil, gas, and grocery corporations to address corporate profiteering and help fund essential services like flood protection and firefighting.
  • Enhancing rural ground transportation: Emphasizing safety and equity, the party demands a reliable, affordable national bus and rail system to serve rural and remote Canadians who lack access to private vehicles.
Was this summary helpful and accurate?

Canadian Fuel Affordability ActGovernment Orders

September 22nd, 2026 / 12:15 p.m.

Conservative

Ellis Ross Conservative Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, that question is actually very relevant. In terms of what the governments are doing, not only federally but provincially as well, we are not adapting. We have all these measures that propose to lessen the risk, but they are not doing anything about adapting to what happening in our regions. There is no measure of activity for the provincial government of B.C., for instance, to talk about forestry management in terms of forest fire risk, but Canada should be setting an example. Canada has federal lands it is responsible for, and the Indian Act lands as well. We should be setting an example, and hopefully the Conservatives will be coming up with exactly that idea.

Canadian Fuel Affordability ActGovernment Orders

September 22nd, 2026 / 12:15 p.m.

Conservative

Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB

Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise that people are struggling with the cost of living, and it is incumbent on us as legislators not only to listen but to act. Any tax on fuel, whether it be gas or diesel, is ultimately a tax on food. Whether the government wants to admit it or not is another question for another day, but Canadians are out of money and do not have time to wait for us to agree.

I will start off by saying that while I do not think this goes far enough, it is a step in the right direction. Conservatives have been calling for the Liberals to remove taxes on fuel for months. It is nice to see that at least some of the Liberals on the other side do in fact take lessons from Conservatives. I do not believe we would be here today debating this bill had it not been for the relentless pressure from Conservatives and our Conservative caucus over the last number of years on this very topic.

Conservatives like me are fighting for Canadians, who are working hard but find themselves unable to get ahead. Some 35% of Canadians say they are anxious about money, and 28% lack emergency savings to cover basic needs. Canadian families are paying 7.8% more for transportation, while the cost of groceries rose 3.1%. Well over half, or 56% of parents, said they could not fit the cost of back-to-school supplies into their normal budgets.

To some, this might just seem like numbers, but do not be fooled. Behind every number and statistic is a story from a Canadian struggling to get by: someone who is pulling their groceries off the conveyor as the till ticks up faster than they expected, a family who was not quite able to complete the back-to-school shopping list because they just did not have the funds or the children who are no longer in organized sports because there is not enough money in the family budget to drive them there and back. These are the real stories of the real Canadians I heard from this summer, and I know that many of my colleagues heard very similar stories from their constituents.

These are Canadians who are hard-working and have done everything right, but they find themselves in a spot where inflation is going up faster than their paycheque, and they are navigating countless challenges. This summer specifically, I heard from a number of people who are navigating challenging consumer proposals, bankruptcies and foreclosures and who are facing financial ruin because they simply could not keep up for too many months in a row. In far too many of these cases, there are children involved. The kids might not fully understand what this means, but they do know that their parents are stressed out and do not quite understand why.

According to the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy, insolvencies have climbed to levels not seen since the aftermath of the great recession. Let that sink in. We are seeing insolvencies at a rate we have not seen since the great recession, while consumer insolvencies rose another 6.9% year over year. At the same time, mortgage delinquencies have reached their highest level since 2021. Again, behind every single one of these stats is a story of a real Canadian struggling. These are heartbreaking stories, and they are becoming far too common.

Canadians already owe an average of $1.76 for every dollar of disposable household income they earn, and MNP reports that more than 40% are within $200 of insolvency at month-end. It means that 40% of Canadians are within $200 of not being able to pay their bills every single month. Many families have exhausted all of their savings, refinanced their debt and begged and borrowed simply to afford rent, mortgages and everyday necessities like groceries and school supplies. These are real-life consequences of more than a decade of Liberal mismanagement of our economy.

While this bill would in fact offer some relief, it is not the cure for the out-of-control inflation Canadians are still facing. If the Liberals were serious about helping Canadian families make ends meet, they would not stop at a 10¢-per-litre break and pat themselves on the back. They would adopt our plan to remove all federal taxes on gas and diesel until at least Canada Day 2027. That means giving Canadians a break from the excise tax and the GST on gas and diesel, and permanently scrapping the seven-cents-per-litre clean fuel standard and the industrial carbon tax. This could provide 25¢ of savings per litre of gas and diesel and would bring as much as $1,000 of savings to the average Canadian family.

A recent poll found that 63% of Canadians oppose the Liberal government bringing back the fuel excise tax, including 43% who strongly oppose it. There is no surprise to that because all families see are their gas prices continuing to go up month over month, or day to day, it seems. This opposition is not just concentrated in one part of the country. It crosses every region of the country: 71% in the member opposite's riding in Manitoba and Saskatchewan; 64% in British Columbia, Alberta and Atlantic Canada; 62% in Ontario; and 60% in Quebec. It is clear that Canadians are asking for it. They need relief from the cost of living crisis.

I live in rural Alberta. I represent rural Albertans. Many of my colleagues have no idea of the lengths we routinely need to travel just to live life, whether it is to go to work, take our children to school or day care, go to a medical appointment or visit family and friends. It is a 300-kilometre trip for me just to get out of town. I do not think most people in this chamber, whether they are a Conservative, Liberal or Bloc member, understand the lengths that many of us rural MPs go to to serve our constituents.

Every single penny saved at the pump gives people a choice. It gives them the choice of what food they are going to put on the table for dinner that night, which events they can attend, which bills they can pay and how they can plan for their future. It gives them agency. It makes it so they are not dependent on government for every single decision in their life.

For some across the country, the monthly gas or diesel bill is relatively small, but for many of the amazing people I represent, it is not small. It is a significant part of their monthly budget, and it seems to only ever go up. It is also not an optional line in their budget. Most people I represent cannot take transit most of the time because it either does not work for their schedule or simply does not exist at all. Most people cannot walk, as the distances are simply too far, and in the winter, the brutal prairie cold is not for the faint of heart. They often do not have a choice; they must drive, and every time fuel prices go up, they feel it.

They understand a concept that somehow seems to elude many Liberals: When fuel prices go up, grocery prices follow, because food does not just magically appear on the table like my kids sometimes think it does, or teleport to a grocery store. It gets transported on a truck. Those trucks use diesel, and the operators of those companies cannot simply absorb those costs. Freight costs then get passed on to consumers. It is really basic economics.

Conservatives are fighting to restore affordability by lowering taxes, unleashing investment, removing barriers to growth and advancing a real economic action plan that helps Canadians get ahead. The Conservative economic action plan would green-light the 500 projects that are sitting somewhere here in Ottawa on someone's desk and were supposed to move at unimaginable speeds. Conservatives supported the Liberals in trying to move those forward. We just did not imagine that those unimaginable speeds would amount to nothing.

My call to the Liberals is to get to work. Canadians are not asking for more promises. They are asking for real relief that they can actually feel in their wallets. They are working hard. They are making sacrifices and doing everything they can to provide for their families, yet too many are still falling further behind. A 10¢-per-litre reduction may provide some temporary relief, but Canadians deserve a government willing to address the broader affordability crisis and give families the certainty they need to get ahead.

Conservatives will continue to fight to lower taxes, lower costs, more investment and an economy that works—

Canadian Fuel Affordability ActGovernment Orders

September 22nd, 2026 / 12:25 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

Canadian Fuel Affordability ActGovernment Orders

September 22nd, 2026 / 12:25 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, affordability is something the Prime Minister and this government have taken very seriously from day one. I understand that the Conservatives want to focus on one aspect that deals with affordability.

I will talk about the price of gas at the pump. Prior to the Prime Minister taking office, we were paying a 17¢-a-litre carbon tax. The Prime Minister got rid of that 17¢ a litre and made it permanent. Then we put in a temporary suspension of 10¢ a litre, and that is what Bill C-38 would do.

The Prime Minister understands affordability, and we are moving in the right direction with a holistic approach.

Canadian Fuel Affordability ActGovernment Orders

September 22nd, 2026 / 12:25 p.m.

Conservative

Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives have long called for the abolition of the carbon tax on fuel. That is nothing new. We are happy that the Prime Minister finally listened. In the last Parliament with the last Liberal government, which had a lot of the same faces around the cabinet table, the health minister actually said that Canadians were going to burn to death if they go on a summer road trip. He was quite animated in his feelings on this.

This is a small, temporary measure that is a small step in the right direction. What Conservatives are saying is that it does not go far enough and to listen to us. We are trying to work with the government and do what is best for Canadians. All that is stopping the Liberals from doing it is to open their ears and listen.

Canadian Fuel Affordability ActGovernment Orders

September 22nd, 2026 / 12:30 p.m.

Conservative

Fraser Tolmie Conservative Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK

Mr. Speaker, I think what is being lost on the Liberal side is the compounding taxes that happen and how they translate to the consumer when they either go to the grocery store or buy everyday products. I would like my colleague to expand on that, because explaining it another time might help the Liberals understand.

Canadian Fuel Affordability ActGovernment Orders

September 22nd, 2026 / 12:30 p.m.

Conservative

Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who has been a fearless leader for the Canadian Armed Forces and Canadian Armed Forces families and a relentless champion of Canada's Snowbirds.

This is just it. It is not about the fact that the Liberals are removing 10¢ a litre. It is that Conservatives do not believe that 10¢ a litre is going to be enough to create the type of pressure relief that Canadian families need. I do not know if members opposite were in their ridings talking to people struggling over the summer. I was and I know my colleague was, and what we heard is that 10¢ a litre, which would equate to somewhere in the range of $250 for the average Canadian family for a year, is not going to make a difference, but 25¢ a litre, which is approximately $1,000 for an average family, would. It is simple.

Canadian Fuel Affordability ActGovernment Orders

September 22nd, 2026 / 12:30 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, the member can review her own math. I question the math she just provided.

Let us take a more holistic approach.

Canadian Fuel Affordability ActGovernment Orders

September 22nd, 2026 / 12:30 p.m.

An hon. member

Oh, oh!

Canadian Fuel Affordability ActGovernment Orders

September 22nd, 2026 / 12:30 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

No, her numbers are wrong.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, let us take a holistic approach in dealing with this issue. Does the member believe that the Conservatives should support other programs that provide support on affordability, like the dental care program and the nutritional school food program? Are those not programs that help with affordability?

Canadian Fuel Affordability ActGovernment Orders

September 22nd, 2026 / 12:30 p.m.

Conservative

Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB

Mr. Speaker, what I heard loud and clear when I was touring my riding and meeting with Canadians from coast to coast to coast this summer is that they want agency. They want to make decisions as to how they spend their own money. They think they can spend their money a lot better than Ottawa can spend their money. They might have different priorities. Some of the programs mentioned by the Liberals are well and good for the people who can access them, but far too many Canadians are stuck on waiting lists or are waiting in line trying to access those services, so they do not do anything for affordability for the thousands and thousands of Canadians who are stuck waiting in line trying to get access or stuck waiting for the schools that have not done anything.

One of the biggest frustrations, whether it be with the school food program or the day care program, which are provincial responsibilities, is that the Liberals have not worked as well with the provinces as I think they could have or should have to deliver these services. What they have done is create layers of bureaucracy, which means that right now over 30% of food bank users in Canada are children. That is a shame, and that is a shame on the Liberals.

Canadian Fuel Affordability ActGovernment Orders

September 22nd, 2026 / 12:30 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this place for the first time to give a speech since our summer recess. I spent much of the time since I last saw members in this place, as we all have been doing, travelling through my riding. It may look like a small dot on a postage stamp to people who are looking at it quickly, but actually, given that it is five separate small islands, Saturna, Salt Spring, Mayne, Pender and Galiano, ferry transit between them makes it difficult to get to all parts of the community. Certainly, it takes a lot of time to travel with B.C. ferries. I am certainly supporting the motion from my colleague just down the way here, from Courtenay—Alberni, to find ways in the next budget to provide some funding to assist and have some equity between the way Atlantic Canada ferries are subsidized and B.C. ferries.

I am detracting from my main point, which is that on the Saanich Peninsula, as the name of my riding, Saanich—Gulf Islands, suggests, I represent quite disparate areas geographically. Getting to nine different communities, as I do twice a year, to make sure I hold community meetings as conveniently as possible for all my constituents, means that I have just been on a very inspiring and constantly humbling experience of listening to my constituents in each of the five small southern Gulf Islands and throughout the Saanich Peninsula, from the very tip of it at the very northern part of the peninsula, near Swartz Bay and the airport, all the way down into areas that are covered by the MP for Victoria. We share some territories there.

The concerns from constituents in Saanich—Gulf Islands are not unlike concerns from constituents I imagine my colleagues have heard across the country. There is a lot of concern about the cost of living, particularly around housing. There is a lot of concern about access to medical care, access to a family doctor and provision of health care services. In my communities, everywhere I went, there was the concern of the climate crisis. This summer, British Columbia had a state of emergency declared for the whole province as fires burned out of control. It was terrifying to see the sights out of Peachland and the areas around the Okanagan. We also had extreme weather events throughout British Columbia this summer. As a former Cape Bretoner, my heart broke to see the roads washed out and the floods and the loss of life in Cape Breton from the floods there.

In other words, whenever I am travelling through my community of Saanich—Gulf Islands, I know that what I am hearing resonates with Canadians across the country. There is no question that Canadians are concerned about the cost of living, and I will be supporting Bill C-38, which we debate now, but I do so with some misgivings, because it, once again, piles on the notion that we are heavily taxed, which some Canadians are and some Canadians are not, and that a temporary relief measure like this will make a real difference.

I also have a long memory, and I remember that back in 2008, Prime Minister Stephen Harper made the fuel excise tax permanent in the 2008 budget, which was one of the better things he did in terms of public policy. Again, in the 2013 budget, he confirmed and committed that the municipal order of government would be able to access those funds as a predictable, reliable source for public transit. This has changed over time in terms of where that funding comes from.

For municipal orders of government across Canada, one of the concerns I have is, as we temporarily suspend the excise fuel tax, not only does it have impacts on our overall debt and deficit, because that is just money not coming in to the general federal revenue at a time when we have unprecedented levels of deficit already, but it also creates confusion for municipal orders of government. I have spoken to mayors who say that yes, they are told by the federal government that there are other infrastructure funds and they can apply through those, but they are not as transparent, not as predictable and not seen to be as reliable for helping people who are looking for public transit.

I do have a number of points to make about this, but while we look at fuel taxes in today's bill, let us just for a moment focus on public transit. This country, for a wealthy industrialized country, a member of the G7, has an embarrassingly poor public transit system, particularly in rural and remote areas of Canada, particularly if we are looking for an affordable form of transportation like a bus or a train.

If a person owns their own vehicle, yes they can mostly get from A to B, but if they do not, they can be in some peril, recalling that the findings of the Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls included a strong recommendation that Canada commit to a ground transportation system that was affordable and reliable in rural and remote areas, because it is the vulnerability of the poor that places indigenous women and girls hitchhiking on the Highway of Tears.

For people trying to get from Prince George to Vancouver, are within rural interior B.C., or for that matter, are in Saskatchewan or Alberta, we used to have a bus service that was quite reliable in most provinces, but it retreated everywhere and all at once. We used to have many more routes on Via Rail, and they used to be more affordable.

I have heard Alto mentioned a few times in this place. However, the Green Party thinks that Alto needs major overhauls to become what it could be, but in the meantime, it does absolutely nothing for Canadians who do not live in the Windsor-Quebec corridor. It does nothing for people in rural parts of New Brunswick where medical care can be a five-, six- or eight-hour drive from a hospital. If it is winter and the roads are icy, or for a senior, there are no alternatives to get there except to get in a car and drive.

Again, while we are talking about this fuel excise tax, because of its historical connection to transit, I wanted to use this occasion to make a few points on that. I am hoping that the federal government brings it forward in its next budget. I had begged the Prime Minister before the 2026-27 budget. When I met with the Prime Minister in early October 2025, I made this very point that we need affordable ground transportation in this country. We do not have it particularly for rural and remote Canadians, but we are also looking at a lot less predictability around the funds for urban public transit.

Going to this piece of legislation and the focus on a temporary suspension of fuel excise taxes, there will be some ways in which that assists some Canadians: those who are buying gas. Again, if a person cannot afford to own their own car, they are not buying gas for a car.

According to Statistics Canada, one out of 10 Canadians right now is living below the poverty line. That should command our attention. There is a growing gap in this country between the wealthiest and the poorest. I remember when I used to feel sort of complacent or self-satisfied as a Canadian thinking, “Well, that gap between the rich and the poorest is in the United States. It is not so much here.”

We actually are going through a very significant shift. The middle class is feeling the crunch. When we talk about the affordability crisis, we are largely talking about the fact that, as some of my colleagues from other parties have already mentioned, we have families with two incomes who still cannot make ends meet. There is that crunch in the middle class, and affordability has become increasingly difficult. What has happened to the income distribution in this country? We may be in a class war where the upper class or the billionaire class has already won, and we did not even know there was a war.

Again, one in 10 Canadians lives below the poverty line, but what is happening to the wealthiest? According to Forbes, in 2000, it could track 15 billionaires in Canada. I am not against billionaires. Well, actually, I kind of am. I think that billionaires should be taxed so that we can reduce them to mere millionaires so that they have to count their pennies like the rest of us mere millionaires. I am kidding, obviously. I am not in that group, but it does strike me as something that should command our attention that, right now, there are 76 to 82 billionaires in Canada. Again, 26 years ago, there were 15. Now, there are somewhere between 76 and 82 billionaires. Some Canadians are doing quite well. Some Canadians do not worry about the fuel excise tax. In fact, they do not worry about their income tax either.

We are not taxing their wealth, which we really need to look at. We need to look at taxing assets. For what it is worth, in the last election campaign, thanks to the Parliamentary Budget Office and the act that oversees it, political parties had the right to ask for the Parliamentary Budget Office to give all political parties access to an analyst to look at budgetary planks that the party was looking at to see what the PBO thought of budget proposals.

It happens that the Green Party platform, of all the party platforms in the 2025 election campaign, was the one that brought us closest to balanced budgets. I do not think anyone saw that in the news because, despite our efforts, we did not get any news coverage of the fact that we had the platform that brought us closest to balanced budgets. We did that through a combination of measures.

One that was very successful was a tax on financial transactions. It used to be called the Tobin tax. In the late 1990s, the House of Commons passed a motion in support of Canada pursuing the Tobin tax. We applied it domestically and looked at what would happen if we put a 20¢ tax on every $100 of transactions in the stock market or currency transactions. Now that is not going to affect those people who are struggling in the middle class, nor does it have any impact at all on the one in 10 Canadians who are below the poverty line. However, applied to stock market transactions and currency transactions, it could bring in $55 billion to Canada's general revenues. That could really make an impact for Canadians who are struggling. That could provide the transit that people need to get from A to B when they are in the group of people who either cannot afford to own a car or find it much more convenient not to have to operate one, particularly in urban areas. Again, rural and remote Canada also needs ground transit.

When we look at the current situation and the price of gas being one of the main drivers of inflation right now due to the decision in February of this year by the United States and Israel to launch attacks on Iran. These violate the United Nations charter. I suppose I could be charitable and say the Prime Minister misspoke when he initially said that Canada was supportive of what the U.S. was doing in bombing Iran. Regime change has never actually occurred through foreign countries violating international laws to bomb them. In any case, ever since that occurred, the price of gas has been spiking, especially since the Strait of Hormuz started being blocked, which was entirely predictable, although somehow Trump and his advisers did not predict it.

The effect of higher gas prices has been devastating on inflation and the cost of food. It has had a real impact, certainly for North Americans, and globally it has created a lot of instability in markets. It has created a lot of concern. One thing it has also created is a windfall level of profits for the oil and gas industry.

Here we are debating a minor change that will affect the Treasury of Canada by increasing debt and deficit, but why are we not talking about the need for an excess profit tax on the industry that right now is essentially war profiteering? The oil and gas sector has, in the last year or so, had an extraordinary increase in profits, and some of it has certainly been to the benefit of Canada's economy. Our government books and the Alberta provincial government books are better off for high fuel prices, but it certainly has not helped the average Canadian or for that matter the average American or people around the world who are struggling.

They are also struggling, as I mentioned earlier, because of the climate crisis and the impact of having to become climate refugees, sometimes several times in the same year. I think of people in northern Ontario, near Wabakimi Provincial Park, in first nations communities that burned to the ground and had inadequate preparations for such events because the November 2025 budget gave scandalously scant attention to the need to protect communities and to build up a national firefighting force to buy water bombers.

What we had was a commitment to lease water bombers and that was it. We were going to lease three water bombers over four years. There was nothing for what we need to do for flood protection and for building up. By the way, firefighters in this country are not even classed under occupational health and safety rules as first responders. They are at the back of the bus in terms of the protection for their own lives, their own salaries and their own pensions.

I will go back to the issue of windfall profit taxes. According to the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, if we applied windfall profit taxes on the oil and gas industry, that could bring into the coffers of the Government of Canada between $18 billion and $48 billion. Again, that could assist us quite a lot in paying down the debt. With respect to the $34 billion, for some reason, I like to convert billions back to millions so we can think about what it really means to be a billionaire and what it really means for the Canadian government to spend the money it takes in through taxes. One billion dollars being 1,000 million dollars, we spent $34,000 million, without a single vote in this place, to build the Trans Mountain pipeline through a Crown corporation that we are now proposing would build a second pipeline. This is an outrageous waste of money, where the public purse is paying for something that the private sector does not think is worth investing in because there is no business case. However, if we brought in a windfall profit tax on the oil and gas sector and brought in $18 billion to $48 billion there and if we brought in, as we are advocating, a financial transaction tax to bring in $55 billion there, yes, we could start paying down debt and deficit.

I meant to mention one thing about the pipelines that I forgot. The hon. Minister of Energy and Natural Resources was in British Columbia earlier this summer, and he actually said that the Trans Mountain pipeline was making “oodles” of money. To correct the record while I have a chance, in fact while the Trans Mountain pipeline in its year-to-year operations is more than breaking even and making some money, the revenues returned to the Government of Canada by the Trans Mountain pipeline have yet to be sufficient to pay the interest on the debt Canadians incurred to build it. If someone is making money in a normal business context, if they have spent $34 billion to build their business, personally I do not think they are making any money until they pay that off. They have a $34-billion debt and not one penny has been paid down but are under the assumption that pipelines are like something the tooth fairy leaves under one's pillow and there is no actual cost to them. However, it is $34 billion and now the government is proposing to spend $40 billion for a project that has no private sector proponent.

Regarding this bill, if we are going to provide real relief to Canadians and real measures for affordability, we do need to look at excess profit taxes on the very monopolistic small group of grocery store chains that we have in this country. We need to help farmers. Desperately, we need to help farmers so they can get food from their farms to the tables of Canadians, healthy local Canadian food. I applaud the measures the government has brought in for making greenhouses more accessible, but we need to make land accessible to young farmers and we need to do everything we can to ensure that the grocery store chains buy local and promote local so that our farmers can continue to provide healthy food to Canadians.

We would not do much in Bill C-38 to actually deal with the affordability crisis. Yes, the Liberals have taken a page out of a position advocated by the Conservatives last year. Yes, I will vote for it, but I am concerned. Where is the government in really helping Canadians with affordability? Where is the help for remote and rural Canadians to get transit that is affordable? Where is the help to ensure that the poorest of the poor are not bearing a larger tax burden than the richest of the rich? It is time to actually consider tax fairness in this country, taxing wealth and excess profits of transnational corporations.

Canadian Fuel Affordability ActGovernment Orders

September 22nd, 2026 / 12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Tim Watchorn Liberal Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC

Mr. Speaker, I always like working with my hon. colleague, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. We always have great conversations.

What I am hearing in my riding when I go door to door is that people have confidence in what our Prime Minister is doing, what measures we are putting in place and how they help people in my riding. I live north of Montreal. A lot of people work in Montreal but live in my riding, so they spend a lot of time sitting in traffic on Autoroute 15, which is one of the most congested places in Quebec. This measure would give them a certain amount of relief.

I find this measure very balanced. We would be giving relief to people at the gas pumps now but maintaining revenue in the future to make sure we can invest in public transit because public transit is definitely a problem. I would like to know from my hon. colleague how she finds this balanced approach a good measure.

Canadian Fuel Affordability ActGovernment Orders

September 22nd, 2026 / 12:50 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the member for Les Pays-d'en-Haut.

I know him well; he was once my neighbour in the House. Before the Liberal majority, I sat sit with them on the other side of the House.

I know that his riding depends a lot on the ski industry. We had better do something about reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Otherwise there will be no ski industry in the country because we will not have enough snow to sustain it.

Meanwhile, I am voting for this. I take his point that we want to be sure that we are reducing stresses for people today who are spending too much on gas, no question, but if we really want to invest in a future for Canada, it is time to act on the climate crisis and reduce excess profits to the big oil and gas industries that are making out like bandits at both ends.

Canadian Fuel Affordability ActGovernment Orders

September 22nd, 2026 / 12:55 p.m.

Conservative

Fraser Tolmie Conservative Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK

Mr. Speaker, I know that this is not only questions, it is also comments. I would like to make a comment regarding my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands. I thank her for her intervention. I know she is not a millionaire. I know she is not a billionaire, but she does have a heart of gold. I thank her for the words that she brought forward.