Debates of Oct. 20th, 2026

Canadian Fuel Affordability Act

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt.

I want to bring members back to a couple of hours ago when the House voted on a motion. We had a very simple vote on a very simple motion earlier today. I will read the text for everybody watching at home just so they see how simple it was. It reads:

That the House officially recognize that:

(a) the Liberals have been in power for 11 years; and

(b) Canada is in an affordability crisis.

The entire motion is one sentence, and nothing in it is untrue. The Liberals have been in power for 11 years, and we do not need a calendar to confirm that. On the second part, members can ask anybody across the country who is trying to save up to buy a place of their own, put food on the table consistently or even pay their bills, and they will tell them that the answer to that question is yes, Canada is in an affordability crisis.

However, earlier today, every single Liberal MP on that side of the House stood up to oppose that motion, and in doing so, they denied reality. They denied the reality of millions of Canadians. They denied their own record in the same way they have been running from it since the Prime Minister got here. They pretend that the same MPs, the same cabinet ministers and the same advisers who served under Justin Trudeau, many of whom are now promoted, are somehow not responsible for everything that happened over the last 11 years.

What is worse is that they deny the financial reality that millions of Canadians are living right now, just outside of this place. I invite them to visit a food bank in Toronto and defend that vote. Some have foolishly taken a picture in front of that food bank, but they should actually go in and see the rising numbers. Last year, Toronto food banks recorded 4.1 million visits, which is the highest number recorded, and a 340% increase since 2019. The line did not just double. It more than quadrupled.

Maybe the Liberals could explain their vote to the 46% of Canadians who say that they are less than $200 away from not being able to pay their bills every single month. Maybe they could explain it to the nearly three in 10 who say they already do not earn enough to cover their bills and their debt together. That is who they voted against today when they voted to deny reality and deny the financial reality of so many of those people. That same denial runs through the legislation that we are debating again today.

The government frames Bill C-38 as a major affordability measure. In reality, as we have heard many times, it would extend a temporary pause on one federal tax at the pump, which is a 10¢-a-litre excise tax. By the finance minister's own math, that is about five dollars off of a 50-litre fill-up. It is something, that is for sure, but it is not enough. It is not enough for the affordability crisis that we are facing, and it comes with an expiry date, as if that affordability crisis, which was created over the last 11 years, would just automatically disappear. On February 1, half of that tax comes back and the relief drops to 5¢ a litre. On April 1, the rest comes off and the relief drops to zero.

Every other federal charge built into the price of fuel stays in place, which means the GST stays in place, the clean fuel standard stays in place and the cost of the industrial carbon tax stays in place. We could remove all of them and families, seniors and truckers could save up to 25¢ a litre, but that is not what we are talking about here. It is what we could be talking about.

Under the Conservative proposal, the relief would not vanish next February. It would last until at least Canada Day in 2027. It would be up to $1,000 of savings for the average Canadian family, which is real money that would help, but if members vote against even recognizing an affordability crisis in the House just hours ago, then why would anybody trust them to fix it?

Throughout this debate, we have heard a lot of bluster from the other side and not so much on the facts point. I just want to lay out a timeline for those following, because some Liberal MPs have been trying to take credit for the ideas, and other Liberal MPs do not understand why they are doing it.

On April 2, Conservatives called for federal taxes on gas and diesel to be removed for the rest of 2026. Twelve days later, the Liberals announced a partial version of that plan, pausing only the excise tax and only until Labour Day. Fast-forward to August 16, when we demanded cancellation of the Labour Day tax hike and removal of all the federal fuel taxes until at least Canada Day in 2027, and on September 2, the Liberals backed down again and announced that extension, which is the bill in front of us today. Each time, they arrived late, and each time, they brought less than Canadians needed.

If not for our Conservative pressure, I do not think we would be debating this at all. If nobody on this side of the House had called for it, I do not think we would be standing here. I do not think it would have existed in the budget, which we should have seen a couple weeks ago, and I do not think they would have done it, because the current government has a habit of dealing with problems by pretending they do not exist, hence the vote earlier today, just as the Liberals are pretending that we are not in an affordability crisis by voting against Canadians, who are clearly living much of their lives in that crisis.

In March, the Prime Minister told Canadians that affordability was the best it had been in a decade, but I want him to really look in the faces of a family and tell that to the family filling its minivan this week. Meanwhile, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, whom we heard from today, reports that the deficit went from $36 billion under Justin Trudeau in the last fiscal year, to $72 billion this year. That is not a little more spending. That is double. It is putting groceries on the credit card and calling it a budget. We will see what happens in the next couple of weeks.

The problem still for all those families is that it is getting worse. Yesterday, Statistics Canada reported that inflation rose to 3.1% in September, up from 3% in August. Gasoline prices are up nearly 28% from a year ago. Fuel oil is up almost 58%, hitting families in Atlantic Canada the hardest, because that is what many of them there use to heat their home. Grocery prices are up 33% since 2020. We know there are lots of reasons for these costs rising, but today we are debating actually giving relief to families and taking some of that money off their bills.

Families obviously feel this. Six in 10 Canadians say that at least half their paycheque is already spoken for before it even arrives. Yes, we need to do more, and Conservatives are never going to stand in the way of relief or a tax cut. That is what we came here to fight for, no matter how small it is and no matter how time-limited it is, because even a little money makes a difference for people who are facing strife in their communities right now all over the country.

However, we will keep daring the government to do more. We will keep advocating from this side of the House, because the only reason we are having this conversation is that the Liberals were put in a corner to have to do this. We will keep making it very uncomfortable not to act, and we will keep speaking for all the families who need the relief, who need longer-term relief and who need bigger relief on their paycheques.

The Liberals have already moved from denial to partial acceptance, and we see that with this bill. We just want them to go further. We want them to get rid of all the taxes that they continue to put on fuel, such as the fuel standard, which will eventually raise the price of gas by 17¢ a litre by 2030. First they refused to touch the gas tax, period, and now they are giving us a hidden carbon tax. We want them to not actually stop the tax cut on Labour Day, and we want them to stretch it for a few more months or even longer, as long as it takes for families to get out from under the affordability crisis the government has buried them in.

If the Liberals want to keep borrowing ideas, that is fine. If the Liberals want to react to a strong opposition that is going to push them to do the right thing, that is fine, but we actually want them to get this done. Canadians should not have to wait for the Liberals to always catch up. They certainly should not have to watch the government take credit for doing the bare minimum. That is exactly what we are going to advocate for with this bill and so many others that will come to the floor of the House of Commons. We want real relief for families and for every Canadian from coast to coast.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, Canada is not broken, and I am proud of our record as a government. What the opposition seems to forget is that we went through the management of the most severe public health crisis in the past century. The COVID pandemic disrupted established supply chains and drove up costs for everyone, not only in Canada but around the world. The opposition also conveniently ignores Donald Trump's illegal, unnecessary trade war against Canada. It ignores Donald Trump's war against Iran, which has choked off the supply of fuel around the world, and Russia's war against Ukraine and Ukraine's retaliatory strikes against Russian refinery infrastructure, which also drove up the cost of fuel.

Will the members opposite acknowledge the reality of the global political issues going on in the world that are causing costs to rise?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the member came here with a prepared speech to read to another member without listening to their speech, but I will just make something clear to the member opposite: One of the biggest reasons is that the government, in less than 10 years, went from a $25-billion deficit to a $60-billion deficit, only to go to an $83-billion deficit by 2030. That is a 232% increase. It is not for nurses, not for groceries and not for gas, and it does not go into the pockets of ordinary Canadians. It goes straight to interest payments.

If the member wants to sit here and deny the record of all the members in the front benches for the last 11 years, he can do so, but he is going to have to look his constituents in the eye and explain that to them.

[Jim Belanger, Conservative, Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt, ON]

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

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we voted on a very simple motion in the House today. Again I will remind other members that they stood up and voted against it, recognizing that Canada is in an affordability crisis. There is a problem with these temporary measures that do not go far enough. Coupled with the vote today, if someone does not recognize and does not admit to themselves that we are in an affordability crisis, if they do not listen to their constituents and do not look at Canadians out there, then they can never truly solve it and can never truly do the work to help Canadians.

If we look to January and February, the record of the Liberal government over the course of the 11 years will continue, and things will continue to get worse, not because this country is broken but because the Liberals broke it.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague pointed out that we voted against the Conservative motion earlier today. At the same time, she worries about the deficit but would have us increase it even more with the measures that were included in her party's motion.

I have a very simple question: Will the Conservative Party vote for Bill C-38 or not?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish the member had listened to my speech before he asked the question.

Of course we will vote for affordability measures. Of course we will vote for tax cuts. It is a small piece of relief for families that need it. However, we want the Liberals to recognize that a whole lot more needs to be done. It was needed well before the member got here and will be needed well after he is gone.

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

Mr. Speaker, some Conservative MPs are saying that they want to get rid of the excise tax permanently, whereas this particular member says it is a suspension until maybe July 1. What is the Conservative Party's actual position? Does it want to permanently get rid of the excise tax, or is it talking about a suspension?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

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

[Jim Belanger, Conservative, Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-38, the Canadian fuel affordability act. I will be supporting this bill because whenever there is an opportunity to make life more affordable for Canadians, especially for the people of Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt, I will support it. However, let me be clear: While the bill is a step in the right direction, it would not go far enough to address the affordability challenges facing northern Ontarians.

Before I had the privilege of serving my constituents in Parliament, I owned and operated a small wholesale petroleum business. For more than 25 years, we supplied petroleum products to retail, commercial, industrial and residential customers throughout northern Ontario. Fuel costs were a significant expense, representing more than 30% of operating costs. Any increase in fuel pricing had an immediate impact.

What affected my business then affects families and businesses across northern Ontario even more today. People in my region drive because they have to. They drive to work. They drive to school. They drive to medical appointments. They drive drive in order to buy groceries and to visit family. Unlike residents of major urban centres such as Toronto or Ottawa, northern Ontarians do not have the option of taking public transit to get around. That is why any measure that lowers the cost of fuel is something I support.

However, make no mistake: This bill is before us today because Conservatives forced the government's hand. For years, Conservatives have argued that taxes on fuel and energy are too high. We warned that rising fuel costs were driving up the price of groceries, increasing home heating costs, raising transportation expenses and making life less affordable for working Canadians. We brought forward motions. We raised these concerns in the House. We stood up for Canadians struggling with the cost of living. Eventually the government was forced to respond, but it did so only with temporary measures.

First, the government suspended the excise tax on fuel. Then, after continued pressure from Conservatives, it extended that suspension until January 31, 2027, reduced the tax rate by half for February and March and scheduled the full tax to return on April 1, 2027. While this relief is welcome, it remains just that: temporary. For people in northern Ontario filling a typical 50-litre tank, the full suspension would save more than five dollars per fill-up. That is a start. Every dollar matters when families are stretching their budget. The problem is that this relief would come with an expiry date. Come April 1, 2027, the full tax would return.

Canadians will not suddenly become more affluent on February 1, 2027. Northern Ontarians will still need to get to work. Students will still need to get to school. Families will still need to attend medical appointments. Truckers will still need to move goods across the country. The government's plan would not solve the problem. It would simply postpone it. The federal excise tax currently adds 10¢ per litre to gasoline and four cents per litre to diesel. Conservatives have consistently said this is too much.

The government likes to point to temporary fuel tax relief as proof that it is helping Canadians at the pumps. Any relief is welcome, and I support measures that help families keep more of their hard-earned money, but there is a reality that the government rarely talks about.

It is that when fuel prices go up, governments collect more HST because that tax is charged as a percentage of the price at the pump. In Ontario, drivers pay HST not only for the fuel itself, but also on the federal and provincial fuel taxes already built into the price. In other words, Canadians are paying tax on top of taxes. The higher fuel prices climb, the more tax revenue governments collect, so while motorists may receive a few cents per litre in temporary relief, governments can be bringing in even more through increased HST revenues. For people across northern Ontario, that matters. Driving is not a luxury. It is how people get to work and keep their businesses running. Northerners do not have the option of simply driving less. That is why affordability cannot be based on temporary measures and short-term announcements. Northern Ontarians need lasting relief that recognizes a simple reality, which is that in our part of the country, transportation is not optional and every extra cent at the pump comes out of a family budget or small business trying to make ends meet.

The Conservative position is straightforward. It is to remove federal taxes on gasoline and diesel until at least Canada Day 2027 and permanently eliminate the clean fuel regulations and the industrial carbon tax. Together, those measures could reduce fuel costs by approximately 25¢ per litre. That is meaningful relief. We know what happens when fuel costs rise. Transportation costs rise, the cost of moving goods rises, the price of building materials goes up, small businesses face higher operating expenses and, ultimately, those costs are passed on to consumers.

At every stage of the economy, higher fuel costs make life more expensive. Meanwhile, diesel prices in the United States remain significantly lower than they are in Canada, placing Canadian producers, businesses and supply chains at a competitive disadvantage. The government cannot control global energy markets or geopolitical events, but it can control the taxes and regulations imposed on Canadians here at home. Conservatives proposed a plan that would reduce federal taxes on fuel until Canada Day 2027, permanently eliminate the industrial carbon tax and repeal the clean fuel regulations affecting diesel production. We have also called for increased domestic refining capacity and expanded fuel storage reserves so that Canada is better prepared when global disruptions cause prices to hike.

Bill C-38 is better than nothing. I have always said that Conservatives will support measures that put money back into the pockets of northern Ontarians, but temporary tax relief with a sunset clause is not a long-term affordability strategy. Affordable energy should be a permanent priority, not a temporary political adjustment. Northern Ontarians are not asking for more government programs. They are asking to keep more of their own money. They are asking for lower taxes and a government that understands the realities of life in rural and northern Canada.

Conservatives will support Bill C-38 and the relief it provides, but we will also continue fighting for a broader solution: the permanent removal of the industrial carbon tax, the elimination of the clean fuel regulations and an energy policy that puts affordability first. I will continue fighting for lower taxes for the people of Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt and Conservatives will continue fighting for lower taxes for all Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, it has been interesting as I watch Conservatives stand up. Some will say that they want to get rid of the excise tax on gas permanently. Others will say we should maybe not get rid of it permanently but instead maybe get rid of it until Canada Day. Many of them will say to just get rid of whatever tax we can.

I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts, first, on what the Conservative Party's position is on the excise tax. Do they want to get rid of it permanently?

Second, are there some other taxes they want to abolish that the member should share with the House tonight?

[Jim Belanger, Conservative, Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think what I am trying to say is that the fuel costs are too high. Especially in rural and northern Ontario, where I come from, transportation costs and diesel costs affect everything. Everything is transported by truck and so on.

Whether we eliminate the excise tax for good or extend it for a longer period of time, when the prices are higher, the Government of Canada is collecting more GST from those revenues. It is not costing the government any money to extend that longer. It should be at least extended to what—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Madam Speaker, the government has implemented several cost-saving measures, such as the groceries and essentials rebate and middle-class tax cuts. We have eliminated the consumer carbon tax on fuel. That is about 10¢ a litre right there. There is the federal child care program. We are also incentivizing more affordable transportation methods such as EV rebates, $5,000 for a battery electric and $2,500 for a plug-in hybrid. I am glad to hear that the member opposite will be voting in support of the temporary suspension of the excise tax.

Why not support all these tax-saving measures?

[Jim Belanger, Conservative, Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt, ON]

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

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Madam Speaker, I simply want to tell my colleague that the price of fuel is indeed very high. We agree on that.

However, would my colleague agree that the cause of this significant rise in fuel prices extends far beyond Canada's borders and is the result of the war in Ukraine and the war in the Middle East?

[Jim Belanger, Conservative, Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is true that global pressures, wars and so on are having an impact on the price of oil. However, prices are set on a certain base amount, and taxes are then added on top.

The relief we can give to consumers by reducing taxes is always a good thing.

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

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, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

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, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

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, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

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, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

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?