Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the good people of Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna. I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Lethbridge.
Today's debate is an important one because it goes directly to the affordability crisis Canadians are living through. Often in this place, along with much of the media, we tend to focus on things we most disagree on. Today I will start with what I hope we can agree on: Canadians are struggling with the rising cost of living. They want practical solutions that lower costs now.
That brings me to fuel prices. In recent weeks, Canadians have seen sharp increases in the price of gasoline and diesel. Families felt it immediately, and so did farmers, truckers, tradespeople, small businesses and anyone who depends on transportation. Some will say that global events are to blame, and that may be true, but Canadians do not elect us to describe the problem and then do nothing. They elect us to find solutions.
This is why the Conservative official opposition has led the debate on gas prices and affordability. We are not shrugging our shoulders while Canadians struggle, nor have we simply named the problem, but we have proposed solutions.
What we are seeing, again and again, is that when Conservatives put forward solutions that work, reality catches up and the government is forced to change course. There is also a pattern Canadians can see clearly, which is the government consistently taking on only a fraction of the solution. On affordability, the Prime Minister removed the consumer carbon tax, but kept the industrial carbon tax and so-called clean fuel regulations, policies that continue to raise costs across the economy. On housing, instead of removing the GST completely to build supply, the government offered narrow measures that can increase demand without fixing the supply problem. On getting big projects built, the government asked for and received the support of the Conservatives to pass Bill C-5, but instead of designating and then streamlining these projects to get past the red tape, it has yet to designate a single project as a national interest project, as was named under the legislation.
All of these are half measures that may create some headlines but limit the real-world impact to Canadians.
That takes us to today's motion. The problem is clear: When costs surge due to higher fuel costs, the cost of everything rises, and when government adds layers of taxes and policy-driven costs on top of that surge, it makes a bad situation worse.
Now we have a new development. The Prime Minister announced that the federal government will temporarily suspend the federal fuel excise tax on gasoline and diesel starting next week and lasting through the summer, but only to 10¢ a litre. That confirms what Conservatives have been saying all along: Taxes at the pump matter and Canadians need relief.
Let me be clear: Canadians deserve relief. If the government finally takes a step in that direction, I think we should acknowledge it, but we will also point out what it has left on the table.
If someone were to ask my constituents a simple question, would they rather have a plan that delivers about 25¢ a litre of relief for the rest of this year or a plan that delivers about 10¢ a litre for a few months, especially when higher prices mean that Ottawa collects more GST and corporate tax revenue, most Canadians would know the answer right away. They would prefer our plan.
The question today before the House is whether we will do what Canadians need, not partially, temporarily or halfway, but with a plan that lowers costs across the economy and protects Canadians from price shocks beyond their control. Suspending only a small part of the tax temporarily while leaving these other federal charges and regulations in place is not a full solution.
The Conservative official opposition proposes that we can and should do the following: Suspend all federal fuel excise tax and GST on gas and diesel and permanently eliminate the so-called clean fuel standard and the industrial carbon tax. If we take these steps, we could deliver meaningful and immediate relief at the pumps and reduce inflationary pressure throughout the supply chain.
Why does fuel matter so much? Virtually everything in our Canadian economy moves by commercial trucking at some point in the delivery chain: goods, groceries, building supplies and services. If it moves, it usually moves on a truck. When fuel costs rise, shipping costs rise, and when shipping costs rise, the price of what Canadians buy rises. That is how inflation gets embedded in day-to-day life.
It is not just trucking. Aviation, marine shipping and rail depend on fuel, as well as mines, forestry operations, major construction sites and heavy-duty equipment. Fuel is the major input cost across our entire economy. If we are serious about finding solutions to affordability, we cannot treat fuel costs as a small or isolated issue. Fuel costs drive the cost of living.
I want to return to a point we often hear from the Prime Minister, that we should focus on the things that we can control here in Canada, not the things that we cannot. On that principle, I will agree. We cannot control global conflicts, international choke points or the decisions of other countries, but we can control federal taxes and policies that increase the costs here at home. So the question is simple. If the government now agrees that suspending the federal excise tax helps Canadians, why not also suspend the GST on gas and diesel? Why not remove policies that permanently drive up costs for Canadian industries and consumers? Why not do everything we can to control and to protect Canadians from what we cannot control? That is what this motion is about.
It is also about recognizing when governments delay action, consequences are real and often permanent. Let me share a real example. At the end of 2025, the community of Crofton, British Columbia was devastated by the news that Domtar would permanently close the pulp mill in that community, costing about 350 well-paying jobs. It was a tragedy for those workers, their families and their community. Now, I am not going to claim that the closure was entirely the fault of government. It was not. However, did the government do everything it could have done to help prevent it? Well, the answer is no.
What is telling is what happened next. Following this closure, the B.C. NDP government announced it would ease industrial carbon pricing for pulp mills going forward. Now, why did it do that? It was because it took a closure and job losses for government to recognize an economic reality. If costs are piled onto a sector that is not competing internationally, costs that competitors may not be paying, that sector can be made less competitive and there can be accelerated closures and job losses. For the people of Crofton, that response was too little, too late.
That is exactly the risk when governments choose half measures and delay. They wait for harm to happen and then they say, “Oops, we had better fix that.” This House has a chance to act early, to choose solutions now, not apologies later. That is where the Conservative official opposition's role is clear, not just to name the problem but, whenever possible, to propose a solution.
The government often tells Canadians it is focused on affordability, competitiveness and resilience. Those are fine words, but words do not lower a grocery bill or fill a fuel tank. If this government is serious, it can prove it today, not with slogans but with a vote. It could vote for measures that actually reduce costs. This should not be that complicated. Canadians want relief that is real, measurable and immediate. They want us to find solutions. They want us to reduce costs that government controls, especially when families are being squeezed.
A temporary suspension of one tax is a start, but Canadians deserve a full plan, a plan like ours. That is what the official opposition is proposing. This is our chance to show Canadians we hear them. This is a chance to put solutions ahead of excuses. This is our chance to vote for affordability. All we have to do is vote in favour of this motion. It is really that simple.