Debates of May 26th, 2026

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Cancellation of Federal Taxes on Gas and Diesel and the Clean Fuel Standard

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the crowd is in high anticipation for my remarks today on the opposition day motion. I will remind the hon. chair of the House of Commons agriculture committee that I look forward to his questions after my 20-minute remark here.

Mr. Speaker, you will know from my seven years as a parliamentarian that I thoroughly enjoy opposition day motions. Obviously I have had the privilege of sitting on this side of the House since 2019, but opposition day motions are an opportunity for opposition parties to put forward their policy prescriptions, their ideas on how to solve issues for Canadians, and rightfully so.

Today we are talking about affordability and the cost of living. I dare say we could not find a member of Parliament, at least I hope not, who does not believe that the work we have to do to support greater affordability for Canadians and to tackle the cost of living is an important public policy measure. Where we differ is on the prescriptions with which we go about doing that work.

I want to start by saying that, when I look at the opposition day motion, I humbly believe that the policy prescriptions the Conservative Party is putting forward are actually too narrow. The motion is looking too narrowly at the way in which we have to address affordability in this country. I represent a rural riding in Nova Scotia. I have a lot of constituents who do not have the same ability to rely on public transit, who have to drive longer distances and who, I know, watch the price at the pump. The motion would be a really important measure.

However, when I look at the opposition day motion, I see that it contains no recognition of why Canadians are dealing with higher costs at the pump right now. There is no recognition that the war the United States is waging against Iran and the impacts from what is happening at the Strait of Hormuz are having a major impact on the cost of living, the cost of fertilizer and the cost of fuel.

Furthermore, nowhere in the opposition day motion does the Conservative Party recognize that the government has already, for the next four months, suspended the federal excise tax on gasoline. That is 10¢ a litre. It is a small but important measure with respect to the ability to fill up one's gasoline tank, but it is a sizable investment. This is almost $3 billion that the Government of Canada has committed to supporting affordability across the country. As I have said in the House before, it is a time-limited measure, until just after Labour Day in September, and we think that this is fiscally prudent.

We hear the Conservatives talking out of one side of their mouth in the House of Commons about Canada's fiscal position, which I will cover in my remarks here today, but in the same breath they talk about spending even more on removing the GST on gas, which is for important public policy spending for social programs that matter to Canadians across the country. The Conservatives are playing a little on both sides. I guess that is the nature of opposition day and opposition parties, but at the end of the day, we think this is a reasonable measure that we have put in place for the next four months. There is no mention of it whatsoever.

I think about how we go about tackling the question, and we see affordability not only through the lens of the price at the pump. I would remind hon. members and Canadians at home that the first act of the Prime Minister and the government was to eliminate the consumer carbon price. That was 18¢ a litre. Yes, there were rebates tied to that.

Mr. Speaker, you will know that as a member of Parliament I was a strong advocate of making adjustments and was deeply supportive of the Prime Minister's work to eliminate the consumer carbon price, on the premise that there would be more ability to tackle climate and the environment and to reduce emissions. However, that policy was challenging for Canadians in rural areas who do not have the same ability, particularly with transportation, to change their policy.

The government has already reduced the cost of gasoline by 28¢ a litre in the past calendar year. Never do we hear the opposition recognize that point. Never do we hear the Conservatives talk about this as something that the government is moving, in their view, in the right direction. The government believes there is a slippery slope around the GST. The GST, as we mentioned, notwithstanding the spring economic—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is rising on a point of order.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a point of order that I hope the hon. member who has the floor at the moment, will appreciate. There is far too much noise entering the chamber for me to give respectful attention to the hon. member from Kings—Hants.

I do not know if you could hear it from where you are, Mr. Speaker, and it is beginning to come down to a dull roar, but it was really difficult to hear the hon. member for Kings—Hants.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I thank the hon. member for her intervention, and she is quite right. In fact, as she was speaking, our distinguished Sergeant-at-Arms, Claude, went out to quiet down the noise in the exterior.

It is important for all of us as members, when we are in the exterior to this room, to ensure that our teams, friends and school groups that we take through keep the noise down out there, because it does impact what happens inside the chamber.

We will resume debate. The hon. member for Kings—Hants has the floor.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for ensuring that we have proper decorum. I believe that my remarks here today have value, and I really look forward to engaging with my colleagues, particularly when we get to questions after the speech. Perhaps people were just excited to be able to see the parliamentary secretary and the hon. member for Kings—Hants, but we will never know.

What I was talking about was that we see affordability through more than just one lens. We have done the work to reduce the price of gasoline by, on average, 28¢ a litre across the country. It may vary slightly across different regional realities. At the same time, that is not the only lens through which Canadians would view affordability. We have put a series of programs in place that I want to highlight to Canadians, and I would urge my Conservative colleagues to consider the ways in which we can expand the definition of how we put money back into people's pockets to support their ability to raise a family, take care of themselves or stay in their home longer, perhaps. This gives me an opportunity to talk about those.

I am a proud son of a truck driver, and my mom is an administrative assistant back home in Kings—Hants. We come from pretty humble stock, as I say. We were a paycheque-to-paycheque kind of family. When some of my constituents ask about my trajectory, my involvement as a parliamentarian and why I chose the Liberal Party of Canada to stand for, I say that I was deeply proud of the work that the last prime minister was doing, particularly around the Canada child benefit.

Previously, former governments had put in a flat-based type of incentive. Whether someone had a lot of different incomes to their name or they were relatively low-income, they received largely the same type of benefit to help support raising their children. My parents did not have a type of program like the Canada child benefit. I was fortunate that I had grandparents at home who were helpful and supportive and who were allowed to get me involved in organized sport. However, I still remember going to the grocery store and there being times when my mom would run the credit card, or the debit card, I guess, in that day, and not be able to pay for the groceries.

I am proud to stand with a party that put social programs at the heart of our agenda, and with a new Prime Minister who has said and vowed that he will protect them. The Canada child benefit is one example. I was not here during the time it was implemented in the 42nd Parliament, but the Conservative Party voted against it, and the Conservatives do not talk about it as an important affordability measure that we can do to support everyday Canadians.

For 50 years, Canadians talked about the importance of a national child care policy, not only as a policy to help support young people in their earliest years in terms of early education but also, of course, as a mechanism to support working parents who may wish to go back to the workplace to contribute to the economic side of the equation and in terms of the economy, to be able to get back into their pursuits that matter from a career side.

The cost of child care had risen quite significantly. We came along, and under the last government and through a program that is continuing to be maintained under the current government, we supported a national child care policy with the objective of getting down to, on average, $10 a day. Never do we hear that mentioned in the Conservative opposition day motion. It is saving hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars a year for Canadian parents, and it is a key affordability measure.

The Conservatives have wavered about where exactly they stand on this policy, but again, it is affordability. Yes, we want to save on the gas tank in terms of being able to get people to and from places in rural or urban communities across this country, but so too do we want to have the programs that matter for our youth and for affordability in terms of being able to get parents back into the workplace. That is good affordability policy.

How about old age security increases and the guaranteed income supplement? A large proportion of the demographic in Kings—Hants is seniors. We have young, vibrant families and people of all ages, but we have a lot of seniors, especially in our rural communities.

I am proud to stand with a government that increased the old age security by 10% for seniors 75 years old and up, and also increased the guaranteed income supplement for some of our most vulnerable seniors to ensure that they have more ability to pay the bills and keep a roof over their head. That is something that is key affordability, and we do not see this level of policy prescription from the Conservative Party. We are not seeing this type of thoughtful policy.

I know it is the Conservatives' job to critique the government and hold the government to account. I completely understand and appreciate that function in our system, but it is also their job, I believe, to demonstrate that they have the ability to be a government-in-waiting. Fortunately, humbly and respectfully, I feel as though the way in which the member for Battle River—Crowfoot and the Conservatives have conducted themselves and purported themselves over the last year is actually helping and supporting our ability to say that we are the best choice for Canadians in that electoral context.

This is important because better policy prescriptions from the Conservative benches, or all benches for that matter, although I obviously am talking today about His Majesty's loyal opposition, allow us and force us, as the government, to be even better in how we are putting together the programs and policy initiatives that matter.

Last, I would say, is dental care and the groceries and essentials rebate. I have seniors in my riding who had not had the ability to get to a dentist in a considerable amount of time because, frankly, it would have cost more money than they could afford. That is an affordability measure that supports health care outcomes. It supports better access to care, not only in Kings—Hants but across this country. Never do we see many of the opposition politicians talking about what this means for their own constituents, even though these are, of course, national programs.

The groceries and essentials rebate is an enhanced GST. The government has reframed it as a groceries and essentials rebate, but it will be up to $1,800, depending on income, and support 12 million Canadians. Again, it is a targeted benefit, trying to support those who may need the help the most. We think that is important.

I do want to get to a point I have raised before. I had a coalition of agricultural groups from Saskatchewan in my office today: Sask Oilseeds, Sask Wheat and some canola representatives. We talked about the clean fuel standard.

There are a number of different ways in which we can reduce emissions and make sure that for our next generation in this country, we are being thoughtful about balancing economic growth with also putting some emphasis on driving innovation and reducing emissions. I honestly believe the clean fuel regulation is one of the best policies.

Members of the Conservative bench should be able to turn to it and say this is a policy that is using feedstock from farmers across this country, notably in prairie provinces, to reduce emissions. It has a minimal impact on the price of fuel, and it is helping to drive almost $30 a tonne's worth of canola benefit in the prairie provinces. In eastern Canada, it would be more the corn playing into ethanol blends. However, this is a policy that directly ties back to benefits on farms in rural communities and is driving innovation across this country. It has helped create Strathcona, a multi-billion-dollar investment in Alberta.

The opposition party continues to signal that their way to affordability is tearing down a program that actually drives industrial benefit in this country, that actually supports Canadian farmers and that notably supports investment in the rural prairie provinces. That shocks me. In fact, I would love to get in this country, beyond partisan consideration, an ability for the two major parties to agree that this is a policy that has merit. We may have slightly different interpretations of the best way to go about it, but instead they just want to tear this thing down. They want to tear down a policy that has driven billions of dollars of industrial investment, notably in western Canada, and they want to create policy uncertainty in this space. I find that shocking. I find it unfortunate. This will not solve affordability for Canadians.

I ask humbly, because the last platform of the Conservative Party, over a year ago, talked about tearing down the clean fuel standard and removing any form of industrial carbon pricing. They proposed to actually spend more taxpayers' dollars to get to a worse outcome on the environment. Conservatives need to come clean also with the policy prescriptions of the Conservative Party under the leadership of the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot. Their policy prescription, back in April 2025, was to actually spend more taxpayers' dollars, which ultimately has to come from Canadian pockets because we all pay taxes, to get to a worse environmental outcome.

That is the thing we have to litigate in the House and ask questions about. I have great respect for many of the humble members on the other side, including the hon. member for Perth—Wellington, a great guy. I encourage those members, whom I feel have the right view about how to conduct and drive that party forward, to have these honest and hard conversations about how we find a pathway and how we make sure the Conservative Party actually has some policy prescriptions in this space. Right now, at least on this one, on the clean fuel standard, it is actually benefiting individuals in Conservative ridings across the country. It is driving industrial benefit. It is creating those opportunities.

I want to take an opportunity to also talk about affordability through the lens of what we have done in the spring economic update, because, at its core, this motion is about affordability. I would point Canadians and hon. members to something I am proud of. I was the first in my family to get a post-secondary education. I obtained a law degree and a master's degree in public administration management. I am proud of that background. I also come from a background and a long history of individuals who did blue-collar work and worked in the skilled trades, and I am proud of that as well.

There is $6 billion in the spring economic update to support, which is our hope as a government, and help train 80,000 to 100,000 Red Seal skilled trade workers. We are going to need the pipefitters, the plumbers, the electricians and the carpenters. The government is looking to catalyze $1 trillion of investment in this country over the next five years. We have a goal of building major projects in a variety of different fields, whether in renewable energy, clean energy, nuclear, conventional energy or the mining activities that we are going to need to help drive our clean energy future.

We really want to see big projects and mid-tier projects get under way, but we also have to have the workforce and industrial capacity to deliver on that. We see that $6-billion investment as critical. That is supporting affordability for individuals who want to go through apprenticeship programs and have access to the means to do that, including an additional $400 to draw EI when individuals go back to that eight- to 10-week block as they continue to upgrade their education and build their skill set in the workplace.

I would point to the work we have done to maintain the augment in the Canada student grants. Acadia University is in my riding of Kings—Hants. I just had the opportunity to be at a convocation and saw a lot of bright, young individuals who are doing great things today and I know will continue to do great things in the community and across this country.

Education has become difficult and expensive. Part of that is tied to the ways in which some provincial governments have chosen to invest in post-secondary education. We want to make sure we are doing our part on the federal side, and we have increased the Canada student grant from $3,000 to $4,200. This was the type of programming that benefited me when I went through university and benefits lower-income students who may not have the means from their family to help pay for post-secondary education.

We have also reduced the amount of money on a weekly basis that students who benefited from the federal loan program have to pay back after they are done their education. That is affordability in action. That is smart public policy helping support Canadians across the country. Again, I want to see more of this from the opposition benches because we can be more nuanced than to just tear down environmental policy. Yes, gasoline prices are important, along with fuel and housing. All of that matters, but these are some of the other elements we can do on affordability.

Then there is the CPP rate reduction. It is small but meaningful. In the spring economic update, we announced the CPP rate reduction from 9.9% down to 9.5%. On average, this will save a worker with a T4 income around $70,000 just shy of $200 a year in savings. Again, I understand that may or may not move the needle for some who are dealing with a difficult situation, but I would humbly suggest what the Conservatives have put on offer today as a policy prescription would be less of an affordability measure than what we have just done with the CPP rate reduction. It is important not only for employees who pay into CPP but also for small businesses, which will benefit depending on the number of T4 employees they have.

There is one last thing I am going to talk about. Members know I have been a strong champion in the House of the issues of farmers and agriculture. I have talked at great length about the need to be more agile in our regulatory structure. I think of the work and conversations I have had with the Nova Scotia fruit growers and the many different commodities across Kings—Hants. They talked about the government being more agile in using the science and evidence of other jurisdictions to inform our regulatory model in Canada to ensure farmers have the tools they need to do their job. I would point to the Prime Minister's work, when he was in Australia, with Prime Minister Albanese in terms of the joint communiqué that those two leaders released around regulatory co-operation between agencies in Canada and Australia.

I would also point to the spring economic update. I give credit to the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Health, who have focused quite intensely on the ability to have an economic lens around the decisions of what was formerly called the Pest Management Regulatory Agency and also of the CFIA. I know this matters for affordability and competitiveness, and it will have a translation in terms of the price of food. These are examples where the government is reducing red tape and moving forward its goal to not only drive projects but make our landscape in the business community more competitive. As it relates to agriculture, this is great public policy.

I was told this morning that imitation is the greatest form of flattery. I know the hon. member for Bow River has put forward his own private member's bill that looks oddly similar to one I put together three years ago. I give him credit for that.

I am proud of the work we did on our platform back in April, when, respectfully, the Conservatives did not have a whole lot to say. We are going to continue to implement that platform on things like this. I am glad the Conservative Party is joining the conversation, but we are on it and we are going to keep doing it for Canadian farmers.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Before we go to questions and comments, I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, the time provided for Government Orders will be extended by 15 minutes.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora—Kiiwetinoong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member for Kings—Hants' thoughtful comments on this topic.

The fact of the matter is that the Liberals have created a cost of living crisis. Canadians are struggling from coast to coast. What we are putting forward, the elimination of all fuel taxes for the rest of the year, would save an average family over $1,200 this year. The member spoke a lot about some of the small changes the Liberals are now trying to make to fix the issues they caused in the first place with respect to affordability.

Would he not agree that allowing Canadian families to save an extra $1,200 this year would help alleviate that cost of living crisis?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is one I would put in the camp of the good ones whom I have a lot of respect for.

I know he is framing this around $1,200. We are looking at a comprehensive view around affordability. We have already reduced gas taxes in Canada by 28¢ a litre. We believe that is important. The hon. member talked about, and I would reject the premise of his question, how the government has created a cost of living crisis. I would point to a lot of external events that are having impacts the government is seeking to respond to.

I would go back to the Canada child benefit that his party voted against. I would go back to national child care, which his party has not made clear they would maintain if they were in government. I would go back to old age security and the GIS that his party voted against. These are prime examples of affordability. We are going to do our bit on gasoline, but we also want to support other broader affordability. We do not think getting rid of the clean fuel standard, which supports farmers, is smart public policy.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to read today's Conservative motion and discuss what is missing from the motion.

I have a question for my colleague.

One of the things we in the Bloc Québécois have noticed is that this Conservative motion is missing something. In the spring of 2025, a vote-buying cheque was sent out to everyone in the provinces, except people in Quebec and British Columbia. While people in the rest of Canada were receiving cheques, Quebeckers were still paying interest on the debt incurred from those cheques and the carbon tax. We know that the sole purpose of the measure was to buy votes. People in Quebec did not pay that tax. In the end, Ottawa literally stole more than $814 million from Quebeckers through the Liberals' vote-buying cheques. The Conservatives have also left that out of today's motion.

In a context of significant financial needs and with the heavy burden of pressure and responsibility on Quebec, does my colleague believe that we are entitled to that $814 million?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, naturally I cannot explain the political views of the Conservative Party.

However, as far as our government is concerned, I am very proud of the work we are doing with the Government of Quebec, particularly on major projects like the Contrecœur project and the Nouveau Monde Graphite project, as well as the investments that are being made. There is some good news for Airbus and AirAsia, as well as a major investment and a partnership with an Asian company.

We are here for Quebeckers, together with the government of Premier Fréchette, always in the interests of Quebec and the entire country.

[Marilyn Gladu, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for yet another thoughtful speech. He pointed out that the Conservatives are really not giving the government credit for the many affordability measures we have put in place in the last year. It is a huge number, so I thought I would give him a chance to perhaps recount them.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say, first of all, on the record that I am proud of the work of the member for Sarnia—Lambton. Even when she sat on that side of the House, the opposition side of the House, I thought she litigated in a way that was respectful. She would engage respectfully. We are very happy to see her on the government benches helping to support the public policy of the government.

The way the member framed the question, at the end of the day, is what I am hoping to see from the Conservative Party. The reason and the rationale as to why we have seen four members of Parliament from the Conservative Party now say that they are more at home under the leadership of the Prime Minister and a government with that type of party and style are that we are offering thoughtful policy. The idea of just killing the clean fuel standard, which actually supports Saskatchewan, Manitoban and Albertan farmers, with no thoughtful alternative as to how to tackle those issues, is a type of politics that is not offering practical solutions for Canadians.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Kings—Hants discussing agriculture and how much it matters to him. Of course, I share his concerns.

He spent much of his speech talking about the clean fuel regulations. Can he explain what that consists of and how farmers in both of our regions will be able to take advantage of the benefits of this regulation?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague for being such a strong advocate in Parliament for farmers across the country and especially in Quebec.

With regard to the clean fuel regulations, there are a lot of options available to the affected parties to ensure compliance, and that includes the use of biofuels. There are farmers in western Canada and Quebec who grow corn and who have the opportunity to sell their crops to produce biofuels here in Canada.

The Conservatives want something else.

They are looking to kill that program, to cut that program, and it actually would have a direct correlation with the ability of farmers in Quebec and in western Canada to get a good market price. This is about supporting farmers at the farm gate using their feedstock to support cleaner fuels in the country. The comparison would be saying we should put lead back in our gasoline because it might make our gas slightly cheaper. That is, essentially, the Conservative proposition.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora—Kiiwetinoong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to catch the Speaker's eye and join debate again on this topic. The Liberals always talk about the price of gas and they try to blame foreign influences and foreign conflicts. Conservatives recognize that those foreign components have a cost associated with them. However, if we look at Canada compared with the United States, the price of fuel is 13% higher in Canada. That is very clearly a result of Liberal taxation policies. The Liberals would argue that it is not.

With all due respect to the hon. member, how would he justify that 13% difference in the gas price between Canada and the United States, if not for Liberal taxes?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, what I would say is that this differential existed when Stephen Harper was the prime minister as well. There are a number of factors in the way in which Canadians create the revenue that supports social programs. At the end of the day, what the hon. member is suggesting in today's motion is to take away the funding of GST that supports broad government programs in that member's riding and all across this country.

I have a question for the hon. member, and maybe he can take a thoughtful dynamic in his own party. Essentially, the Conservative position on eliminating the clean fuel standard would be like suggesting that we should put lead back in gasoline because it would actually make fuel slightly cheaper.

The members laugh, but I am sure that if we looked at it, if we did not actually take lead out of the gasoline process, which Brian Mulroney did in the 1980s, it would make gas slightly cheaper. That is the same principle that the Conservatives are pushing today.

Why not just go all the way and say that we should put lead back in gasoline instead of supporting Canadian farmers, clean energy solutions and industrial investment across the country?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have seen this in the past. What do oil companies do when the government cuts fuel taxes? They boost their refining margins.

We need to put a mechanism in place if we want to have a direct impact on the price of oil. The best mechanism would perhaps be some type of price management system to ensure that the gluttonous oil and gas sectors do not take advantage of the fact that the government is giving the public tax credits or tax cuts to unduly increase their refining margins. It seems like that would be somewhat more productive than what my Conservative colleagues are proposing today.

I look forward to hearing my colleague's thoughts on that.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Kings—Hants has 20 seconds to respond.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that is a difficult question, and one that is difficult to answer in 20 seconds.

With regard to price regulation, there are definitely certain regulators in the Atlantic provinces, in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada. I believe that we actually do have a model, and it is up to the provinces and territories to determine the necessary retail price.

Public Accounts

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

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, in relation to the Canadian Council of Public Accounts Committees and Canadian Council of Legislative Auditors Annual Conference, six members of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts be authorized to travel to Halifax, Nova Scotia, in the summer of 2026, during an adjournment period, and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Cancellation of Federal Taxes on Gas and Diesel and the Clean Fuel Standard

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak today on our opposition day motion. I do want to say at the outset that I will be splitting my time with the member for Kitchener Centre.

Why are we speaking on this today? I listened with interest to the government members' speeches, which touched very little on the realities that Canadians are facing in my riding of Fundy Royal, in my province of New Brunswick and throughout the country. The results of over 10 years of Liberal governance are seen in the stats today: delinquencies are up, bankruptcies are up, crime is up and food bank use is up. The percentage of people's income going toward just paying tax, at a time when they can least afford it, is up, with 32% more of Canadians' dollars going toward taxes than just 10 years ago.

Unfortunately, rather than taking accountability for this situation and proposing changes that would actually help the individuals who are struggling, hard-working Canadian taxpayers, we see avoidance of the issue.

Our proposal recognizes a few things. The government members love to say that this is all due to international things out of their control. We have all heard the excuse that the dog ate my homework; this is the government equivalent of that. It is someone else's fault that they are not doing the job they are supposed to be doing. The job the government should be doing is making life as safe and affordable as possible for hard-working Canadians.

Gas prices are 13% higher in Canada than they are in the United States. That equates to 22¢ Canadian more on average per litre. Gas costs now 50¢ more per litre than when global oil prices were at the exact same level in 2014. One might ask how this is possible. It is because of the greed of government, a government that knows no bounds when it comes to greed. When people are down and suffering, the government is raking in record windfalls directly off the backs of hard-working Canadians.

I mentioned food bank use being at a high. In my home province of New Brunswick, the results are staggering, with a 55% increase in food bank use in just one year. There are 50,000 visits per month by New Brunswickers to our community food banks. We have great food banks. I am thinking, in my riding of Fundy Royal, of the Hampton food bank, and the work it does every day, every week, providing help to neighbours and those who are in need. However, what I hear from many volunteers is that they are stretched to the limit. They have never seen demand at the level that it is.

We must ask ourselves what we can do to help out. One of the ways Conservatives are saying we can help out, to the tune of $1,200 per year, is to take the taxes off gasoline for this year. Gasoline and diesel is at a record high, so we are saying to take the taxes off fuel. What are those taxes we are talking about? We are talking about the clean fuel standard, the GST, the industrial carbon tax and the fuel excise tax. I have to mention, illustrating the greed of government, that not only are these taxes on the cost of gasoline, which keeps going up and up, but these taxes are also on each other. We tax the tax in this country, so when one tax goes up and the price of gas goes up, the tax on that tax goes up. This results in Canadians being gouged at the pump when they can least afford it.

Our proposal is one that would provide savings to Canadian families who are doing such things as driving their kids to a hockey game, driving their kids to baseball practice, driving to work, trying to get back and forth to visit family or maybe taking a vacation this summer where they get in their vehicle and explore someplace in New Brunswick, such as the Hopewell Rocks or the Fundy Trail, or someplace throughout Canada.

At every turn, this government is making life more expensive for those families who are just trying to provide a livelihood for their family and provide those basic necessities. We are not talking about luxuries any more. Many Canadians have long given up on luxuries. On the decisions that families and seniors are now facing, I hear often from seniors in my riding who are struggling with the cost of rent, fuel and food. All of these things have increased, not one or the other, but all of them have increased dramatically under this government.

Pay raises have not kept pace. Seniors' benefits have not kept pace. Each year, individuals are falling further and further behind. This is the result of a decade of Liberal credit card budgets, and of waste and mismanagement.

This motion today calls on the government to offer Canadians immediate relief by ending all federal taxes on gas and diesel for the rest of the year, including the GST, and permanently scrap the clean fuel standard.

The GST is a special case in this situation, because every time fuel increases, even by 1¢, the share that this government greedily scoops up from GST revenue also goes up. When the price of fuel increases by 10¢, the GST on that fuel also increases. This is an unbudgeted windfall for the government due to skyrocketing prices that it is raking in on the backs of everyday Canadians.

I would love to call it a half-measure, and a half-measure would have been pretty good, but this is not even a one-third measure of what should be done to help Canadians with the cost of fuel this year. For the entire year, the Canadian hidden industrial carbon tax, the clean fuel standard, the GST, all fuel taxes, should be removed from the price of fuel.

Members only need to go to their local gas station to fill up to hear the talk around the pumps about how difficult it is to fill up that tank. That tank of gas means a livelihood for some people. It means getting to a loved one this summer when people go to visit family. It means getting kids to sports. It is quite heartbreaking to see parents making that difficult decision of not being able to do some of the things they love to do, some of those family traditions, all because of government greed.

We are not asking the government today to fix every problem. I already mentioned that delinquencies are up, bankruptcies are up, food bank use is up and crime has skyrocketed over a decade of Liberal governance. What we are asking the Liberals to do today is to take this one meaningful step in this one area. We are calling on them, for today, to remove all these taxes on fuel and to stop blaming everyone else.

We have demonstrated today, and I heard some of my Conservative colleagues speak about this, why the cost of fuel in Canada is more than in the U.S. It comes down to the taxes we pay. While this government and its members, and I have seen them, are pointing their finger everywhere except at themselves, the blame lies with the government as to why Canadians today, when they fill up their vehicle, are being gouged.

I would ask all hon. members in the House to think about their constituents back home, think about the people they represent, and ask them, if they were standing at the pump talking to constituents as they filled up their van, pickup or their car, if they thought we should be gouging them right now by charging ever-increasing amounts of GST and other taxes on fuel, or if they thought we should help them out. I think they would listen to their constituents and remove the taxes from fuel.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, one thing that I would agree with my colleague on is the issue of affordability. Over the past two weeks, I have been in my riding and have met with many of my constituents, and affordability continues to be an area of concern.

What does the member say to his constituents when he tells them that he voted against the dental care program, the child care program and many of the affordability measures that we have brought forward? I wonder if he could just elaborate on the response that he gives them, because this side of the House has brought forward many measures to make sure that life is more affordable for Canadians. Again, that continues to be our number one priority, and that is not the message I seem to get from the other side of the House.