Debates of May 26th, 2026

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

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

It is noted.

The hon. leader of the official opposition has the floor.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, because he is so bad with geography, he just received a demotion.

With the wars in the Middle East and Ukraine, with the price of oil at $100 a barrel and the price at the pump at $1.38, and I am not talking about today; I am talking about 2014. During the Harper years, global oil prices were higher than they are today, and there were wars in the Middle East and Ukraine, but the price at the pump was 40¢ a litre lower than it is today.

There is no doubt that the price Canadians pay at the pump is indeed influenced by global conditions. However, that does not explain the current situation, because the conditions were exactly the same in 2014. Oil prices were actually higher than they are today and the price at the pump was 40¢ a litre lower than it is today. That is about 25% less. There must be other factors at play. These are not global factors. They are Liberal factors.

What Liberal factors are affecting the price of gas?

First of all, taxes are going up faster. There is a new carbon tax, renamed the clean fuel standard, which already adds another seven cents a litre and applies more broadly than the previous Liberal carbon tax. There are no exemptions for farmers, fishers or other food producers.

Second, the GST rises every time the price of oil goes up, because it is a percentage-based tax.

Lastly, we have a weak dollar. The Liberal Prime Minister holds himself up as a brilliant economist, but ever since he took office, the dollar has been extremely weak, even as the value of the main resources we have here has gone up. Our dollar is worth 72¢ to 73¢ U.S. When our dollar is weak, we pay more for the goods we buy on the world market. When our dollar is weaker than the U.S. dollar, we pay more for products priced in U.S. dollars.

How did we get here?

First, the taxes that the government charges on gas raise the price people pay at the pump. Anti-development laws are preventing us from developing our resources, leading us to have the second-longest waiting period for mining approvals, for example. These laws are reducing the number of dollars that foreigners have to spend to be able to buy our goods. This makes our dollar weak, which in turn makes our purchasing power very weak. At the pump and at the grocery store, Canadians are paying for the Liberal government's “weak dollar” policies, which have not changed since this Prime Minister has been in power. He is following the same policies as Justin Trudeau, the same policies he advised on five years ago, the same policies that he promoted as a member of an anti-oil banking alliance. Canadians are paying the price with a higher cost of living that just keeps going up month after month.

The Conservatives are proposing concrete measures to make life more affordable. We propose eliminating all fuel taxes for the whole year, which will save Canadians 25¢ per litre, $20 per fill and $1,200 by the end of the year. We are calling on the Liberal government to scrap its taxes and leave more money in Canadians' pockets.

How are we going to pay for it? We will cut red tape, which has ballooned by 7% a year. We will cut back on consultants, because the Liberals spend $20 billion in that area—twice what was spent in Stephen Harper's final years. We will cut back on corporate welfare and the big cheques the Liberals hand out to large corporations that they have ties with and that have good lobbyists. We are going to cut foreign aid, because if we cannot pay the bills here in Canada, we do not have money to send overseas. We are going to cut back on waste and fraud, the fraudulent money we give to fake refugees. Just today, the Parliamentary Budget Officer revealed that the government is pouring billions of dollars into rejected refugees, not actual refugees. These are five examples of things we can eliminate to reduce the cost of living at the pump without increasing the Liberal deficit.

Canadians are paying too much because we have a government that spends too much. An affordable government will give us an affordable life. That is what a positive solution to fulfill Canada's promise looks like: Working hard leads to a good life, an affordable life where people can provide for their children and have the means to enrich their life.

Let me just recap the global situation. There are wars in the Middle East and Ukraine, we have an oil price around $100 a barrel and the price at the pump is $1.38. I am not talking about now. I am talking about 2014. Former prime minister Stephen Harper was in power and wars were raging in the Middle East, in both Syria and Iraq. The Russians had just invaded Crimea and the global oil price was $100 a barrel, $10 higher than it is today, and yet the price of gas at the pump was 40¢ a litre cheaper than it is today.

What explains the difference? Let us go further. In the United States right now, south of the border, Americans are paying, in Canadian dollars and in litres, 17¢ a litre less than Canadians. They have the same global oil price and the same global factors like the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, and yet it is 17¢ a litre cheaper south of the border. Why? Sure, there are global effects that have influenced prices lately, but the bigger and longer-term costs are the Liberal government effects.

One, it continues to impose a newly renamed and rebranded carbon tax, this time seven cents a litre rising to 17¢, but a broader tax that, unlike the earlier one, does not exempt farmers, fishers or other food producers. Two, the GST rises on the cost of a litre of gas as that cost goes up because it is a percentage-based tax. Three, we have an extremely weak dollar, and this is very unusual. Normally, when the world has high oil prices, Canada has a strong dollar because we have so much oil to sell on the world market. However, because the share of our economy made up of our oil exports is down, the link between oil prices and Canadian dollars is reduced, which removes the protection that consumers had from global shocks 10 years ago. Now, with a weak dollar and everything priced in U.S. dollars, globally priced commodities like oil and gas become far more expensive in Canadian dollars. A weak dollar means weakened purchasing power. Almost every foodstuff has either a North American or a global price. When we have a weak Canadian dollar, the ability of Canadian consumers to buy those goods is also weakened. A weak dollar means higher prices for Canadians.

It is amazing that the Liberal Prime Minister, who has been wrong on every single economic issue of the last decade, has now delivered us a weak monetary base in this country. By printing cash and continuing to block resources, he has given us a weak dollar, which is incredible, because that was supposed to be his incredible forte. However, if we look back, he has been wrong on every single economic issue of the last decade: wrong on the carbon tax, wrong to oppose oil and gas, wrong to oppose the pipeline to the Pacific and wrong to support money printing during inflation. He is wrong again today by continuing to impose taxes on our gas.

Conservatives have a motion with a very simple and obvious solution, which is to take all taxes off all gas for all of the year to save consumers 25¢ a litre, 20 bucks a fill-up, which is $1,200 by Christmas. Let us lower the cost at the pump to re-energize our economy, move the parts that make up our economy more quickly, create jobs, relieve families and unleash the power of our economy to restore the promise to our people.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not even going to go to the money-printing side because that could take a few minutes. That is a whole different discussion. For example, I would never say I would fire the governor of the central bank. As a country, we do not say those things.

The very specific question I have is this. In 2014, yes, the crude oil price started the year at $100 a barrel, but it finished at $55 a barrel. There was that sharp decline in oil prices throughout the year that explains the lower gasoline prices. Is the Leader of the Opposition aware of that?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am aware that the price dropped, but the price at the pump that I quoted was aligned with a $100-a-barrel price at the time. Apparently, the member was not aware of the fact that gas prices do not pre-emptively drop before oil prices drop. I think they need to get another economist over there to explain the basics to this guy. Obviously, when oil prices were 100 bucks a barrel under Stephen Harper, at that very moment gas prices were $1.38. Today, oil prices are, I think, $92 WTI, which somebody can look up, and gas prices are up around $1.80.

The reality is there is obviously something other than the global price that is driving the cost at the pumps. It is Liberal taxes and the weak Liberal dollar. The fact that the member is as ill-advised as his leader, who was an incompetent bank governor in England and caused inflation and housing crises there, demonstrates that they still have not figured out that money printing causes inflation. They will never learn.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative leader is proposing to lower fuel taxes, but the Liberals already did that more than a month ago by reducing the excise tax by 10¢. We saw that the price at the pump dropped temporarily, but then refinery margins rose by more than 10¢, filling the gap and leaving us with an unchanged price at the pump and a deficit that has grown by $2.4 billion.

What the Conservative leader is proposing today is to lower taxes even further. We can expect the same behaviour from the oil companies, which will increase their profit margins, and we will end up with an even larger deficit. This Prime Minister is running deficits twice as big as Justin Trudeau's.

Why would we implement measures that increase the deficit so much?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right: This Liberal Prime Minister has doubled Justin Trudeau's deficit. It is twice as high now. No one thought it possible that anyone could spend more irresponsibly than Justin Trudeau, but this Prime Minister has managed to do just that. He has been wrong about every economic problem for the past decade.

I have already listed five or six different government expenditures that we can eliminate to reduce the cost of government and bring prices down by cutting taxes.

Apart from during COVID‑19, this government is spending more on the economy than any government since 1996. This is the biggest, largest government since 1996. We can cut government costs to lower the cost of living for Canadians.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader for providing a very common-sense approach to deal with the cost of living crisis.

The Liberals keep saying that one of the reasons they cannot axe this tax is that it will disproportionately benefit the rich, and that the people who have a low income will not benefit nearly as much from axing the taxes we are talking about in this motion today.

I am wondering if the leader could explain to the Liberal Party how axing these taxes would actually benefit low-income earners and do well for them with respect to the cost of living.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister is really rich when he says he cares about making the rich pay their fair share, but stashes his cash in an offshore tax haven. He took his millions of dollars from Brookfield and put them in a Caribbean tax haven in a fake office above a bicycle shop so that he could avoid paying the same taxes he charges Canadians. It is incredible, when we think about how someone who is literally invested in what Toronto Star called the biggest tax-dodger in Canada, Brookfield, then turns around and lectures single moms about paying their taxes when they fill up at the pump.

Energy is a much bigger part of the household budget for low-income people than it is for high-income people. That is why these Liberal taxes at the pump hurt the poorest people the most. Liberals turning up their nose at working-class Canadians and telling them to pay more and more while the Prime Minister dodges paying his fair share is the height of Liberal hypocrisy.

[Danielle Martin, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Kingston and the Islands.

I am very pleased to rise today to call attention to our government's efforts to make life more affordable. Naturally, Canadians are living in a complex, unpredictable world. Unfortunately, in many ways, this world is also more expensive.

In response, the government is staying focused on what it can control: building a strong Canadian economy, diversifying our foreign trade partners, ensuring responsible fiscal management and, of course, supporting Canadians. I am pleased that the opposition motion underscores that the government has taken action because, yes, we have taken action to help Canadians. We are working tirelessly to make life more affordable for them.

Here is one very practical example. As we all know, ship traffic in the Strait of Hormuz has practically been at a standstill for several weeks. This has caused oil prices to spike, gas prices to soar and the price of other essential goods to increase not only here in Canada, but everywhere. Was it our government that started the war in Iran? Obviously, the answer is “no”. Did we take action to lower costs for Canadians? The answer is “yes”.

Global conflicts and persistent supply disruptions in the Middle East are not things the government can control. What we can do, and what we are doing, is helping Canadians who are impacted by these conflicts. Since April 20, just over a month ago, the federal excise tax on gas has been suspended, and it will remain suspended until September 7. The suspension of this tax is expected to save Canadians up to an estimated $5.75 when filling up a 50-litre tank. It provides real savings for families, who will hopefully be able to travel across Canada this summer. It also lowers costs for truckers and businesses. It is expected that this measure will provide Canadians with over $2.4 billion in relief in 2026-27. By lowering the cost of gas and diesel at the pump, the government is taking meaningful action to support Canadians through these challenging times. At a cost of a little over $2 billion, we are doing it without putting the public purse at risk.

I can give yet another example. Even before the conflict in the Strait of Hormuz, the historic rise in tariffs plunged the economies, businesses and workers of several countries into uncertainty. Canada was no exception. Did Canada cause the global trade disruptions that sent the cost of essential goods skyrocketing? Of course not. Did we take action? The answer is yes.

Earlier this year, to help Canadian families make ends meet, we launched the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit. This benefit is based on the GST credit, as we all know, and provides increased support to more than 12 million low- and modest-income Canadians. Next Friday, June 5, these 12 million Canadians will receive a one-time supplement payment equal to 50% of this year's annual GST credit. This measure alone will provide more than $3 billion in assistance to individuals and families in need.

That is not all. Starting this July, low- and modest-income Canadians will receive higher quarterly payments. The benefit will be increased by 25% for five years, providing over $8 billion in additional support. In total, a family of four could receive up to almost $2,000 this year and approximately $1,400 per year over the next four years.

That is real and meaningful support that will help cover the cost of groceries, bills and everyday expenses.

However, that is not all. We also cut taxes for 22 million Canadians by reducing the lowest marginal personal income tax rate from 15% to 14%. This year, in 2026, that means savings of $420 per person or over $800 for a two-income family.

We eliminated the GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes at or under $1 million, which is a big deal in my riding of University—Rosedale, and we lowered the GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes between $1 million and $1.5 million. We made the national school food program permanent to give 400,000 children access to healthy meals and to help their parents save $800 a year in groceries.

We have also taken concrete steps to make the banking system fairer and, above all, more affordable for Canadians. Since March, consumers can no longer be charged more than $10 in fees when there are non-sufficient funds in their personal account to cover a payment. Financial institutions can no longer charge more than one NSF fee in a period of two business days for the same account. Furthermore, and this is important, no NSF fees may be charged when the account shortfall is under $10.

We will be starting automatic federal benefits this year that will reach up to 5.5 million low-income Canadians by the 2028 tax year. This will ensure that millions of low-income individuals across Canada can receive the assistance they are entitled to. In addition, in the spring economic update, we announced our intention to reduce the Canada pension plan base contribution rate from nearly 10% to 9.5% effective January 1 of next year.

Our government is focusing on what we can control, such as building a stronger Canadian economy and helping Canadians who are struggling every day because of the cost of living. We will continue to shift from reliance to resilience, and we are doing all of this while maintaining a strong fiscal position. According to the spring economic update, the projected deficits are lower than anticipated in the 2025 budget.

Is Canada responsible for the upheaval in the global economy? No. Is the government taking action to mitigate the consequences? Yes.

We are building Canada strong for all, and I urge the members of the House to support our efforts.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned that the government was focusing on what it can control. The government controls all of the gas taxes, such as the industrial carbon tax and the GST on both diesel and regular gas.

If it is only focusing on what it can control, why does it not reduce all of the taxes, as we have suggested in this motion?

[Danielle Martin, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, we need to focus on what we can control. What we need to do is reduce taxes in ways that are responsible, and we need to also continue to invest in the critical social programs that matter to all Canadians. They certainly matter to my constituents and, I am sure, to the constituents of the members opposite.

Whether they are the Canadian dental care plan, which is very important to the people in my riding who were not able to access dental services until this plan came into place, or the Canada child benefit, which benefits families with children who need it the most, these are the kinds of benefits we can control, and we need to continue to protect them for Canadians.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to commend my colleague on her speech, which she gave entirely in impeccable French. It is always very moving to hear that.

I will come back to the Liberal government's announcement to suspend the excise tax until September. That meant a savings of 10¢, but it was quickly offset by an increase of more than 10¢ in refinery margins. The way I see it, refineries saw an opportunity to fill a gap created by the government. This increase in refinery margins cancels out the price reduction, while still leaving us with a deficit.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Danielle Martin, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that there are many things that we cannot control. That is why it is also very responsible to take temporary measures to deal with the crisis that we are facing right now, without putting ourselves in a long‑term position that we cannot get out of.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague on her excellent speech. I am very pleased that there is one more member of our caucus who cares deeply about our Canadian francophonie. I am very pleased to be able to serve with her.

During her recent election campaign, what did she hear from her constituents about the importance of the measures that we are putting in place to help people cope with the rising cost of living?

She put it very well when she said that we are focusing on what we can control, and that includes putting measures in place to help people.

I would like to hear what her constituents told her about this.

[Danielle Martin, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that during the by‑election, I spoke with many people in my riding who are deeply affected by the affordability crisis that we are facing here in Canada right now.

I would say that people are generally very happy to have a responsible government that is trying to implement measures that meet their needs without making drastic policy changes at a time of real uncertainty. For people in my riding, this means having access to stable public services and having a government that responds to immediate needs without rolling out permanent policies. I believe that people see this as a very responsible approach.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in the Canada Gazette, it was published that the people who would be most disproportionately impacted by the clean fuel regulations are single moms and seniors living on a fixed income. I am wondering if the government is even publishing that these are the people who would be most impacted. Would the member not support removing this tax to make life more affordable for these folks?

[Danielle Martin, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding, I am hearing from single moms and seniors about the importance of maintaining the Canada child benefit and the Canadian dental care plan, which have been transformative for affordability for those two groups.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for University—Rosedale for sharing her time with me today to debate the opposition motion that we have before us.

I think I will focus my 10 minutes primarily on the exchange that took place earlier between the member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley and the Leader of the Opposition. They had a really interesting exchange. The member had asked the Leader of the Opposition to talk about all that this would do for low-income Canadians and how it would benefit them more than anybody else. I could not quite wrap my head around where that question was even coming from, because the reality of the situation is that we know that people who are wealthier consume a lot more energy. I mean, they have bigger homes and drive bigger vehicles, and they have other recreational vehicles and toys that require fuel.

This idea that the impact is going to be more substantial on low-income Canadians than on Canadians who are much more well off is just absolutely ludicrous to me. It does not make any sense, but it does fit perfectly into the narrative that Conservatives always try to paint.

This takes me back to the Ronald Reagan Republicans and the Margaret Thatchers of the eighties and their trickle-down economics, where we were told not to worry, that if we give relief to the wealthy, that money will slowly trickle down to the folks who really need it. That is a Conservative myth that has never been proven. There is not a single data point that has actually proven that to be true. It is just what Conservatives like to get up here to say day after day.

When I am sitting here, listening to the member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley and the Leader of the Opposition talk about how removing more tax off of fuel is somehow going to benefit the less fortunate in our society more than the ultrawealthy, I just think it is absolutely crazy to even make that claim.

If we want to talk about what actually helps people who really need help, I will tell the House about some of the initiatives that the government has brought in. I ask the folks watching this from the gallery, or folks at home who might be tuning in to this, to consider that members of the Conservative Party of Canada have voted against every single one of these initiatives. When we introduced the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, Conservatives voted against it. This is money that is specifically targeted to go to the low-income Canadians who the member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley was talking about.

Conservatives voted against cutting taxes for 22 million Canadians. These are initiatives that affected the lowest-income earners the most by removing the biggest amount of tax implication from them rather than anybody else. It is not appealing to the Conservatives because it does not fit the narrative that they can sell back to the base, those who they are really trying to impress, the ultrawealthy.

By the way, that brings up something else. I want to applaud the Bloc for actually discussing this today. The Bloc raised the point on a couple of occasions that the Conservatives are talking about high oil and gas prices, but we have not heard them, in one breath, in one sentence or even in three words, talk about the fact that it is the oil and gas industry that is making massive record profits right now.

I have not seen the Conservatives bringing in motions to talk about what we should do about that or how taxes should be impacting those particular companies. Of course not. They are never going to do that. That is their base. That is who they are always really trying to impress and please, unlike what was in the fake conversation I heard earlier between the member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley and the Leader of the Opposition about suddenly having an interest in helping the less fortunate in our communities.

We also brought in a national school food program, and the Conservatives vilified it. They not only voted against it, but also got up in the House to talk about how it is a fake program that has not helped anybody. The member for York—Durham goes on his “Restore the North” tour, asking why we need to give food to children and saying what we really needed to do, all while making up these fake reasons why it was required, while of course neglecting the fact that we were the last of the G7 countries to bring in a national school food program. National food programs have been going on for decades and decades.

Of course, the Conservatives will take every opportunity to take every single issue and politicize it. They cannot even resist the temptation of politicizing putting food into children's bellies in elementary school. They politicize all of it.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

No, I am not politicizing it.

Mr. Speaker, I am listening to these guys heckle right now, and I will respond to that heckle.

I stood up here for days, for years, asking why we were the last of the G7 countries to do this and why we had not done it yet. I worked internally in my caucus to push the minister of finance at the time, and I presented petition after petition from my community on this issue, so no, I am not going to jump onto an issue on a case-by-case basis for three minutes so that I can politicize it like the Conservatives do. That would be just like what I have to listen to in the House when they suddenly become the champions of those with low incomes in our society.

We introduced automatic federal benefits in our budget, something the Conservatives voted against. Now low-income Canadians whose tax returns are very simple can benefit from it being an automatic process so they immediately get the tax refund. They do not need an accountant or to go to a third-party company and pay for it. That is helping low-income Canadians. Conservatives are not helping when they are getting up and saying that, if we reduce the gas tax even more than we have already, it would help low-income Canadians more than the wealthy Canadians, who obviously consume way more fuel than low-income Canadians.

We expanded and entrenched the Canada child benefit. If members want one clear example of a difference in policy between the Liberals and Conservatives, they need look no further than the Canada child benefit. All they have to do is compare two very easy policies, one presented by the Conservatives under Stephen Harper and one presented by the Liberals.

The goal was ultimately the same, which was to give money to help support children. The key difference between the two is that Stephen Harper's universal child care benefit gave a cheque for every single child. If a person had three kids, they got three times the individual child amount. It did not matter whether they were making $20,000 a year or $2 million a year. Everybody got the exact same cheque.

When we came along we said that it might make more sense to not give cheques to millionaires, but instead take that money and give more to low-income Canadians, who would use the money right away and inject it right back into our economy. If Canadians want just one example of a fundamental difference in the philosophy behind the policies of the Liberals and the Conservatives, all they need to do is look at the two different child care benefits that were introduced under the two different governments. That tells them everything they need to know about the differences between the Liberals and Conservatives.

Of course, there is the $10-a-day child care benefit that we have been working with the provinces on. There is also the Canada dental plan that the member for Regina—Lewvan did not vote in favour of.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is saying that, no, he did not vote in favour of it.

I am sure I could get the Minister of Health to tell me how many recipients there have been in his riding. The member is saying that they do not need it. Why would they not need it? We are one of the wealthiest countries in the world, and the member for Regina—Lewvan does not want to provide dental care to some of the most vulnerable people in our communities. This is everything anyone needs to understand the difference between the two parties. I want to thank him for speaking up there.

The Canada disability benefit is another one, as well as the $500 Canada housing benefit top-up for low-income renters.

These are all initiatives that the government has brought forward to make the lives of the most vulnerable Canadians better. Every single one of these, the Conservatives voted against.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member has been sitting here since 2015. He stands up in his speech touting the Right Hon. Justin Trudeau's record as if it were an accomplishment. Here is where we are today. We have the highest housing prices in the history of our country, Canada is the worst country in the G7 for food affordability and gas prices are astronomically high, but he has the audacity to stand there and talk about the accomplishments of his party over the last 11 years.

Why will he not stand up, show some leadership and vote for our common-sense motion to take all gas taxes off for all Canadians for the entire year to give some real relief to Canadians, Canadian businesses and Canadian families?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it would be a lot easier for me to take that question seriously if the member did not belong to a political party that, as I demonstrated in the example I just gave, handed checks to millionaires. Now I am supposed to suddenly expect its members to care about the affordability challenges many Canadians have.

I am very proud of the work the government has done. Could we do things differently? Could we do things better? Is there always an opportunity to improve? Absolutely, there always is. I will always do that, but will I get up in the House and vote for this motion, which would benefit the ultrawealthy the most, the people who consume the most amount of fuel? No, I will not.