Debates of Sept. 22nd, 2026

Canadian Fuel Affordability Act

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, my message is that I am calling on parliamentarians to do their job and to slow down a bit.

As I said, this bill is an example. There is a ways and means motion. The measure has been applied. We know that it will be applied. We know it because it is pretty obvious. We know how people will vote. We know that it will be applied. What we are saying is that, despite that, we cannot cut corners in carrying out intelligent parliamentary work. It is not just for us as members of Parliament. It is for civil society, as I said. There are people who understand these issues and who are doing research on it. Universities and research centres are full of people who are just waiting for politicians to listen to them so they can help us come up with better policies if a geopolitical situation like the one we are facing today arises again. We owe it to them.

When debate is cut short, when things are rushed or when the work of committees is bypassed, it is not so much parliamentarians who are affected. We are made of strong stuff, we have thick skin. They are the ones we are undermining, and I think they deserve better.

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

Madam Speaker, it is encouraging to see that we are getting wide-spectrum support, working in collaboration with the Conservatives, the Bloc and the New Democrats. It would appear as if the legislation will, in fact, be passing. The biggest benefactors will be Canadians from coast to coast to coast. They will benefit because of collaboration within the House on a good initiative.

Would the member opposite not agree that one thing we could do would be to look to our provincial counterparts and suggest that they too provide some excise tax relief on gas?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I certainly think that the federal government should mind its own business, and I certainly think the policy is worth examining. I believe it is going to pass. That goes without saying. My colleague says that this money will go into the pockets of all Canadians. I spent 20 minutes explaining that this might not be entirely true and that it should be quantified.

My colleague wants us to work together, but it is that type of rhetoric, that type of line recited from memory for the media, and that sort of triviality that undermines our parliamentary work.

It is going to pass. The Conservatives will vote in favour of this policy. Most people here will vote for the bill; we know that.

Now, we need to look further ahead. What will we do next time? What will we do if the situation in Iran is not resolved in six months' time?

That is the real question, and that is why we have parliamentary committees.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and address a very important aspect of the government's agenda. What we have seen over the last year and a half is a Prime Minister and a government that have been focused on how we are going to build a stronger and healthier economy, an economy that works for all Canadians. I am going to go into some detail with respect to that, but it is really important that we recognize that as much as that is a priority, whether for the Prime Minister or any member of the Liberal caucus, the issue of affordability is right in our faces and needs to be addressed. We continue to work on that particular file.

The Conservatives will talk about plagiarism. When Canadians elected this Prime Minister just over a year ago, along with 70-plus new Liberal members of Parliament, we saw a commitment to affordability on a multitude of different fronts. In fact, the very first action the Prime Minister took was to get rid of the carbon tax on fuel. That put money directly into the pockets of Canadians in a very real and tangible way. That was not an initiative driven by the Conservative Party. That was an initiative driven by Canadians, because prior to making that commitment, our Prime Minister was talking with thousands of Canadians. That is what drove that policy. Not all political parties in the chamber supported it at the time, but as a government, we got behind our Prime Minister in recognizing the priority of affordability.

It did not stop there. We can look at one of the first pieces of legislation introduced under Canada's new Prime Minister a matter of weeks after the election. It was a middle class-plus tax break, and 22 million Canadians benefited by that break. That is a significant way to deal with the issue of affordability. Again, money was put back into the pockets of Canadians because we recognize the impact of affordability.

Then if we advance a little further in the term, all within the last year, we see one of my favourite programs, the groceries and essentials benefit program, which is a conversion of the GST rebate. Substantial dollars were added, again targeted to helping millions of Canadians in dealing with groceries and essentials. That is a payment Canadians are receiving on a regular basis. Those are the types of initiatives the Prime Minister and this government have taken, all in the last year.

It does not end there. If we take a look at the spring economic plan or the budget, however we might want to frame it, one of the highlights in there was to give an gas excise tax break to Canadians in support of the issue of affordability. It was a substantial commitment by the government, a break of 10¢ a litre for those who are driving, whether they are a business or an individual driving a child to school, whatever it might be. It is a significant amount of money. That was a suspension that took us to Labour Day, but as Canadians are aware, we have the United States to the south of us, and there was an issuance of new tariffs. That does not help our economy.

The concern from the government caucus and the Prime Minister was how we can provide support. One of the things we looked at was extending the break on the tax on gas through Bill C-38, the legislation we have before us, which was just introduced. Background work was done in order to recognize that there would be great benefit to seeing this legislation pass. This is why, in one of the questions, I commented in regard to the issue of collaboration. This legislation, Bill C-38, is going to pass today not only as a direct result of the Prime Minister's desire to see it put into place, which is important, but because we have collaboration on the floor of the House of Commons.

I am grateful to and thank all members of the House for recognizing how important Bill C-38 is on the issue of affordability, because by us passing it, what we are really doing is saying to our constituents that they are going to continue to get that 10¢ a litre gas break until the end of January. What we also know because of this legislation is that the gas break is going to continue at half the amount, in other words five cents a litre, all the way to the end of March. To me, what we are seeing is a House of Commons that has been inspired, at least in part, by a policy initiative that the Prime Minister has been talking about since becoming the Prime Minister of Canada on an issue that is so important to all Canadians: the issue of affordability.

Because of that, we are going to get it passed. It will pass tonight at second reading, and it is nice to see that the legislation has been programmed. I would appeal to the Senate, because the bill will go to the Senate, and ask that the Senate take a look at how the House of Commons is dealing with the legislation so we can hopefully see its quick passage and it can ultimately receive royal assent. Those are direct ways in which the government has been supporting Canadians on the issue of affordability.

There are many different other examples over the last year of actions that the government has taken in order to support Canadians, and I would like to give a couple of examples of that. I could talk about the expansion of the child benefit program, which helps our families in a time of need. The one I like to talk about is the dental program. The dental program helps millions of Canadians. I am thinking in particular of seniors who are on fixed incomes. There are others, but I would focus my attention on the seniors all of us represent. Every one of us as parliamentarians has constituents who have benefited directly from that program.

That is a program for which I am still waiting to see unanimous support from the House of Commons. I would like, for example, to see the Conservatives change their position on the dental program. It would send a very clear message, not about collaboration but about the idea of it as a public policy. A national dental care program would be there into the future.

Another program that we provide a great deal of support towards is the national school food program, which feeds 400,000 children across Canada in a very real and tangible way. Again, I would look to my Conservative colleagues across the way, who have opposed that particular program. Unfortunately, we have had members say, “Well, it does not exist.” We have had members across the way say that it is a garbage program. It is a tangible program. It is feeding children in need, and it helps in terms of their education.

Back in the day when I was inside the Manitoba legislature in 1988, there were individuals like Sharon Carstairs, the leader of the Liberal Party, who said that we cannot educate a child on an empty stomach. This has been a generational problem. Children were unable to be fed in schools, and that was causing a problem. It was not for all children, but there was definitely a large percentage of children who needed this back in the 1980s.

We have a Prime Minister who, a few months after being elected, came out saying that not only does he support the program, but we are going to make it a permanent program, while some in the chamber call it a garbage program. At the end of the day, this is a program that I hope the Conservative Party will recognize and see the value of. Again, if not directly then indirectly it helps with regard to the issue of affordability.

I can talk about the reinforcement of and support for the pharmacare program, which is relatively new. We have the federal government supporting certain aspects. Hopefully, into the future it will grow, but at the very least we must try to do our best to maintain it. I would love to see it take on the issue of shingles in Canada, for example. At the very least, there is a pharmacare program helping tens of thousands of Canadians deal with issues like dialysis. If the program is not there, the disposable income for individuals receiving dialysis is that much smaller.

Those are only some of the programs that are meant, through this government and the leadership of the Prime Minister, to support Canadians with respect to the issue of affordability, but there are a lot more. I suspect that because we will probably end up sitting until midnight, throughout this debate we will hear about more of those different types of programs.

I know that my time to speak is limited, but I want to highlight that what helps Canadians is a stronger and healthier economy. Again, I am going to go back to the last election and what the government, through the leadership of our Prime Minister, has been able to accomplish on the world scene, because appealing to the world is making a difference.

We need to recognize that the U.S. tariffs are designed, in part, to hurt and divide Canadians. We need to look at ways we can conduct trade and commerce that go beyond the United States. We need to focus attention on Canadian sovereignty. Once again, members will find that we are aggressively pursuing that agenda.

I would argue that we have the right person sitting in the prime minister's chair at the right time in Canadian history. I believe that is going to show years from now. With the connections and the ability to communicate along with the relationships that have been established by, in particular, our Prime Minister, but by others too, doors around the world have opened.

We have been talking a great deal about the investment summit that took place in Toronto. In the lead-up to that investment summit, a sense of excitement was building. I talked about this last year, and I would argue that the Prime Minister is a fantastic ambassador for trade, opportunities and investment to be brought into Canada, which is why it is important that we have the Prime Minister or the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Trade, the Minister of International Trade or the Minister of Foreign Affairs out and about, talking about how Canada has what the world needs. By doing that, we are building that stronger economy.

If members want to get a good sense of just how effective it has been, they can take a look at what happened in Toronto earlier this month. Never before in the history of Canada has there been a half a trillion dollars of investment-type commitments. We are talking about billions in different projects. We had investment bankers, companies, pension funds, all involved and engaged. Toronto welcomed the world as our Prime Minister and government hosted what I would classify as one of the most successful economic summits that Canada has ever witnessed. As a direct result, there is close to half a trillion dollars of commitments. Every region of our country will benefit by that. A stronger and healthier Canadian economy through these investments and expanded trade opportunities is going to help on the issue of affordability as it will generate the types of middle-class jobs that Canadians want to see.

Yes, there are going to be some difficult times. Some months will be difficult because we will see a drop in employment. However, even at a time when we have pressures coming from the United States, the tariff issue and the trade uncertainty, through the actions, in good part, that this government has taken in working collaboratively with many different stakeholders, including provinces, we have been able to accomplish a net gain of tens of thousands of jobs since this Prime Minister has taken office. I believe it is a net gain of over 150,000 jobs.

We cannot control Donald Trump, nor would I want to per se. Having said that, there are things we can do, and we are doing them.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

Madam Speaker, it is great to stand on behalf of the people of Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame and speak for the first time as the member for the riding that has its former name back.

I just heard Prime Minister Trudeau's and his successor's special spokesman brag about the success of the dental program and how it brings down the cost of living. Our constituency assistants have a group chat with other assistants right across Canada. The number one common issue that they are dealing with is seniors who have fallen through the cracks of this super-duper dental program. They are finding that after they have had their treatment or received their dentures or whatever procedure they had, they get a $100 bill, a $500 bill or a $900 bill. Last evening my constituency assistant from Gander told me that a senior citizen had gotten a $10,000 bill, and they do not know how to pay it. They are shocked.

My question is for the spokesman for the Prime Minister. Will he stop bragging about this failed program, or will the government simply fix it?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I did not name the member opposite, but I will now, as the member who actually said the national school food program is garbage and he does not believe in it. He called it garbage. Am I surprised that he does not like the dental program that serves millions of Canadians? The answer is no. He does not surprise me.

What I would suggest to the member is that he talk to the thousands of children and seniors combined in his constituency who have benefited directly from the dental program and the school program, and maybe revisit his position, because his position seems to carry a great deal of weight within the Conservative Party.

It is time that the Conservative Party, if it wants to deal with the issue of affordability, joins us and works collaboratively on this issue because it is important. It supports Canadians.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague seems to have lost his way in the last answer, but I am grateful for the fact that he acknowledged the collaboration that has been taking place among the parties in order to provide relief to Canadians.

My colleague from Mirabel noted that the price pressures here are not short-term and yet the relief is short-term. I wonder if the member can explain why this relief is short-term and why we are not taking the longer-term actions that would bring stability to things like food costs by extending this indefinitely.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for that question because she is quite right. There has been a great deal of collaboration with respect to this particular bill. That is one of the reasons it will ultimately pass through the House in a very timely fashion. As I indicated earlier, hopefully we will get a sense from the Senate that it will pass in an equally timely fashion because of the will of the House of Commons.

It is also important to recognize that the government, in particular with the Prime Minister's leadership, has recognized the issue of affordability and how important it is to Canadians. We will continue to follow that file very closely.

It is important to note that this legislation will extend the temporary suspension of the federal fuel excise tax until January 31, 2027, at the full 10¢ a litre and then reduce it. I am talking about the consumer gas that most of our constituents use. Then it will be extended for another couple of months at 50%, or five cents a litre.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke about seniors. I have seniors in my community who disagree with the government's position. A lot of them are living below the poverty line.

When we take single seniors and look at the amount of taxes they are paying versus a couple earning the same amount of money, it is higher. If we look at a couple earning $50,000, they are paying $600 in taxes, but if we look at an individual, they are paying $5,800.

How is this going to benefit someone who cannot currently live within their current fixed income? Seventy-two per cent of seniors disagree with the government's position.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I think it is important to recognize that there is not just one area in which the government is giving support to Canadians but a multitude of different areas. For example, when we think of seniors, we can think of the benefits. I highlighted, for example, the dental program. I can highlight dialysis. Many seniors receive dialysis. We can talk about the seniors over age 75 who received a substantial increase over and above what would have been the guaranteed annual increase.

Many seniors continue to drive. A senior over the age of 90 can still be driving, and they too will get breaks. There are individuals using buses. Everyone benefits from that 10¢-a-litre drop, which has an impact on fares. Directly and indirectly, there are tangible supports for seniors in many different ways.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Madam Speaker, just listening to the member, I think vividly of my riding. As people go to the gas pump, for the average resident and consumer in Mississauga East—Cooksville, that means a reduction in the price of gas they are paying. They need gas to get to work. They need it to take their kids to sports. They need it for everything they do. It is so important to have these affordability measures. The member has mentioned many other measures. He has talked about the school nutrition program, about how we are also helping with senior supports and about the dental program.

When it comes to gas, this is something that affects everybody every single day. Can the member elaborate on that?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member has hit it right on. We are talking about a 10¢-a-litre break. That is a significant amount of money. Many of his constituents are going to have a direct benefit from it. We would, through this legislation, take that break all the way to the end of January, and then from February to the end of March, there would be a five-cent-a-litre break. I look at the legislation as a very important legislative measure on the issue of affordability, but there are many others that I talked about during my comments, some of which the member made reference to.

This is all an attempt to say that the government caucus and the Prime Minister want Canadians to know that we are very sensitive to the issue, we are proactively working on the affordability issue by taking many budgetary matters seriously, and we are acting.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite went on and on about socialized dentistry and Maoist food programs, but it used to be that Canadians could afford to pay for their own dentistry, and they could afford to buy groceries and feed their children what they wanted. The Liberals have not paid down any debt since 2015, when they were first elected, and that interest keeps on accumulating. It results in taxes, more taxes and unaffordability for Canadians.

Why does the member opposite want Canadians to be dependent upon government for everything?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear about the national food program, which the member was critical of by saying Canadians used to be able to afford to feed their children. It is a bit misleading, and let me explain why.

Back in 1988, I was first elected to the Manitoba legislature. The leader of the Liberal Party at that time was a wonderful lady by the name of Sharon Carstairs. Sharon Carstairs often talked about children who were going to school in Manitoba on empty stomachs and said that we needed to ensure they were being fed in schools.

It gives a false impression to say that this program is something that is only necessary today because of the issue of affordability. This is not necessarily true. It has been necessary for a long time. The Prime Minister has recognized that, and that is why we made the program permanent.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, welcome to the chair.

It is an honour for me to get up to talk about affordability on behalf of the constituents of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, specifically with respect to Bill C-38, the Canadian fuel affordability act.

By the way, I am sharing my time with a member forFort McMurray—Cold Lake.

The government has framed Bill C-38 as a collaboration among the parties and members within the House, which is not entirely accurate, because long before I came here, the leader of the Conservative Party, and the Conservatives as well, were talking about affordability and the pressures Canadians were under. In fact, the leader of the Conservative Party was actually pushing for this tax break at the pumps long before I came along, specifically through the campaign.

It has just dawned on the Liberals this past year that, yes, maybe Canadians are having a tough time and that maybe they should save them some money at the gas pumps. Then they had the revelation that affordability has not gotten better in Canada but has gotten worse, and that they should extend the tax break to help Canadians. That was a Conservative idea, among many other Conservative ideas that the Liberals took.

We applauded the idea of getting rid of the carbon tax, because that was a Conservative idea. Then the Liberals said they were taking away only the consumer carbon tax and keeping the industrial carbon tax, but that we should not worry as it is not going to affect affordability. Anybody will tell us that any kind of business that gets additional expenses, including taxes, will not absorb it. They eventually pass it on to the consumer.

I agree there are a lot of different components that add to inflation and the cost of living. This is just one small component. Therefore, if anything, while I do applaud this measure because it is a Conservative measure, I will be asking the government to take more of our Conservative ideas to save Canadians money, not just at the pump but also to deliver the promise of actually making groceries affordable so we have something, as the Prime Minister requested, to judge him on: the prices at the grocery store. Overall, this one measure is not going to fix affordability, but it would help. It is assistance for families and especially for our young people when fuelling up at the gas pumps.

I also agree with the members of the Liberal government who said that feeding children in schools is not a new initiative. My own band, for instance, started doing that not only for children in schools but also for seniors, because we had own-source revenue by engaging the economy. It is not new, but having to feed children in schools is at record levels in Canada, a first world country.

Record levels of people are visiting food banks in Canada in a single month, over two million, of which approximately 30% are children. Given where I come from, I can understand that. I understand the hardship and heartbreak of a middle-class family. One in five of the people who are visiting a food bank has a job. This is what I noticed as an MLA in Victoria, when I used to walk to work. I walked past the food bank. Once a week it would have a food distribution. Slowly I started seeing minivans parking outside and people eating the food they had taken from the food bank. It was hard to ignore.

This affordability issue is not what it was 20 years ago. The middle class is now affected. They are now struggling to the point where even our young, educated professionals are looking to leave Canada because of the cost of living.

There is a lack of opportunity. There are no projects getting approved. Nothing is moving in Canada. In terms of our young people and our future, I do not know about the rest of the people here, but where I come from, we always looked to see what the future of our country is going to be, what our province is going to be, what our region is going to be and what our community is going to be, for the benefit of ourselves and, more importantly, for the benefit of our kids and our grandkids, especially in a place like Canada.

What was the Liberal proposal at a convention? It was for those young people to try to find a better life elsewhere, abroad, maybe in the United States. The proposal was to think about a $500,000 exit tax. If they cannot afford life as it is in Canada, how are they going to afford $500,000 to leave Canada? That is cruel. It is not investing in the future. How can we invest in the future when we are not looking at how Canadians are struggling?

The Liberals are praising their dental plan and are asking how come the Conservatives keep criticizing it. When I go back to my riding, seniors approach me and tell me how they do not qualify. They make too much money under their pension. I actually stopped a senior citizen in Kitimat, who was shopping. She had one item in her cart. It was bread at 50% off because it was old bread. She did not even go to the store for bread. She goes there regularly for the opportunity to find something on sale. She had one item.

There are a lot more measures the Conservatives have proposed that the Liberal government should entertain and that should pass. The four or five proposals that the Liberals borrowed from the Conservatives and implemented in the last campaign were a good sign that the Liberals are finally waking up to how Canadians are struggling. The suspension of the fuel tax is one small measure that can help, but it is not going to be enough.

We agree that there are global situations that are making this situation worse, things that we cannot control, but there are things in Canada that we can control, including what we are talking about here today: extending the fuel tax break. The government could stop the inflationary borrowing and budgets that are being proposed. It could stop some of the projects that will increase inflation, such as the $90-billion Alto high-speed rail project. That is $90 billion that we do not have.

This is a great announcement, but it is certainly not enough. Will it affect affordability, especially for people who do not even have cars? This just keeps piling up. As we go through the debate, and I am sure a lot of members can see this, costs are continuing to go up, based on the Liberal government's own debates and based on global pressures. Can the government focus on affordability for Canadians? Within our own circle of what is Canada, can we focus on things we can do here now to help, such as what the Conservatives have been talking about since long before I got here?

We will continue to fight for affordability for Canadians, fight for young people and fight for a better Canada, but the Liberal government has to take more of the direction that is coming from this side, not just the four or five ideas it has taken from the Conservatives over the last year.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, as I expressed at the beginning of the discussions and debates, there are a number of ideas out there. We are very happy and grateful that the Conservatives are supporting Bill C-38. It will make a difference for Canadians. However, to address the member's comments, I will say that this is only one initiative that the government has brought in to support Canadians on the issue of affordability.

I want to follow up with a very specific question. The member made reference to a senior who did not qualify for the dental program, and that was part of the problem. Does the member support universal free access to dental care? Is that what he is advocating, because that is not—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to give a chance to the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley to respond.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would love to ask that senior why they do not qualify and why the government keeps getting up and trumpeting, as if this program were the best thing in the world, when a lot of the seniors, especially in my riding, do not even qualify in the first place. Why are there two signals, two messages? When we are really talking affordability, why is the senior so confused that they cannot get the dental plan that the Liberals are championing as the best thing in the world since sliced bread? Just be honest with Canadians.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon South, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from Skeena—Bulkley Valley made a number of great points this morning. I was talking with a staffer. They had a five-year mortgage term ending at 1.92%, but unfortunately, five years later, now it is over 4%, so we are talking affordability. The Liberals continue to borrow at record rates. There has been a doubling of the interest rate, and a staffer was discussing, in her conversation, the affordability issue.

The legislation would help. There is no question that Bill C-38 would help with the affordability of gas. I hear it in my province, because farmers are dealing with diesel and its record prices.

However, I just want to talk about the hon. member's experience with young people and the affordability issue.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is as if every young person across Canada does not see a future here, not only in terms of the affordability of a house and the cost of living but also where their future is in a profession. We are talking around the issue of Canada's becoming an energy superpower, but there is no action. We have so many different issues with Canada, but the economy and affordability are probably number one in terms of how we move forward as a strong, independent country, because the last 10 years have actually put us in a situation where Canadians are struggling, and we are trying to figure out how we move into the new global geopolitical world we are moving into when we really do not have the strength to do it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find when I talk to constituents, and I do hold a lot of community meetings, that, yes, there is a huge amount of concern with affordability. As the hon. member will know, I will vote for the bill as well. However, I also hear a lot of concern from my constituents in British Columbia about how this summer we had a province-wide state of emergency over wildfires. I know that certainly there is deep concern within Skeena—Bulkley Valley about the changes in the lower water levels and impacts on salmon. I wonder if he has any comments on this other aspect of a crisis we are seeing. We cannot really deal with one at a time. We have to deal, with urgency, with both.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

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

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

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

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

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

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

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