Debates of Sept. 22nd, 2026

Canadian Fuel Affordability Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to finish this discussion with my colleague. Tonight, we are talking about affordability; we are not discussing all the other points he could have raised in his speech.

If affordability is important to him, why has he consistently voted against our measures, whether it be tax cuts for the middle class, Canada's national school food program or all the other measures we have introduced over the last year and a half?

Why has he finally decided to support affordability measures this evening when he has been voting against them for the past year and a half?

[Scott Anderson, Conservative, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is because this time the Liberals have not shoved all sorts of other things into the bill to make it unpassable.

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House to speak on behalf of the people of Bow River. I spent my summer, like most of us, back in the riding. It was such a joy visiting with my neighbours, visiting with colleagues and experiencing the world of agriculture: being on the farm, being on a tractor and watching the combine start up in the fall. It is a time of life and a time of the season that brings everything home. That is payday for so many farmers and so many people in my riding. The potato harvest is under way, and there are some challenges, and the sugar beets have yet to start, but this is the time of year when the bills get paid. This is also the time of the year when costs are incurred.

Before I start discussing the specific measures in Bill C-38, I would like to begin by briefly describing the sheer absurdity that has characterized the Liberal government's use of carbon taxes. I have heard from constituent after constituent about how the affordability challenges of the last decade have become an affordability crisis. The rising costs of necessities like food and housing have pushed families into a constant struggle to make ends meet. A Conservative solution to bring down the cost of living has always been on the table: Stop taxing every aspect of life.

The most notorious of taxes during the last several years was the consumer carbon tax, a tax on all kinds of fuel. Canadians despise this tax, especially the residents of ridings like mine, who need affordable fuels to get around, to move goods, to do their jobs and to simply live their lives. This tax extracted money callously from producers, processors, manufacturers and the average Canadian consumer.

Conservatives called over and over again to get rid of this costly tax. The pleas of Canadians who were looking for relief were only denied, dismissed and derided by the Liberal government. Let us not forget that during this time, the current Prime Minister acted as a key economic adviser to Trudeau.

We were told constantly that this tax was effective, that the struggles of Canadians to pay for basic needs were worth it in the end and that anyone claiming otherwise just did not understand how great the carbon tax was. What happened as soon as the 2025 election rolled around? The Liberals had the most miraculous change of heart toward the consumer carbon tax. Seemingly overnight, the entire front bench flipped sides on the destructive policy they were so intent on keeping alive just days or weeks before.

The overwhelmingly clear conclusion from this blatant flip-flop is that nowhere in the adjustment of carbon taxes is there any sincerity to improve affordability for Canadians. These changes spring up to act as a cheap gimmick when the government thinks the time is right or to counter the relentless pressure it feels from the common-sense Conservatives. The green fallacy of the Liberal caucus is starting to crumble.

All of that context brings us to the subject of the discussion today, which is the extension of the federal fuel excise tax suspension until early next year. Clearly, the end of the consumer carbon tax after years of Conservative pressure did not constitute the ending of taxing fuels. The industrial carbon tax, the clean fuel regulations and the fuel excise tax were all ready to fill the hole left after the consumer carbon tax was repealed.

The effects are just the same. The costs of these taxes permeate through our economy and continue to increase the price of essentials for all Canadians. Our trucking, agriculture, fishing, forestry, housing, construction and delivery sectors are hit the hardest by these costs, but every household bears the ultimate burden.

Compound taxation occurs every time energy is needed in the economy. At each of the seven to 15 times auto parts cross the Gordie Howe bridge, costs compound for businesses. Every time food moves from planting to harvesting to processing to the warehouse to retail and finally to the trip home to get to the family's kitchen, tax costs are compounding for families.

Putting this in terms that anyone driving through Bow River this month can see with their own eyes, it is harvest. Right now, combines are running from the moment the dew burns off until well past dark. A modern combine burns 60 to 80 litres of diesel every hour it runs. On a 12-hour harvest day, that is about 800 litres for one machine on one farm on one day. That is before we count the grain trucks hauling to the bins, the tractor pulling the grain cart or the dryer running through the night.

There are an estimated 50,000 combines working across western Canada. If each one runs about 300 hours this harvest threshing, that is more than one billion litres of diesel burned just to bring in this year's crop. That means every cent of the federal tax on a litre of diesel will cost western farmers more than $10 million this harvest. The federal excise tax alone takes more than $40 million. The 25¢ a litre in fuel taxes that the Conservatives are calling on to remove is more than a quarter of a billion dollars out of farm families' pockets in one harvest just from combines.

Conservatives spent months fighting the fuel excise tax to win Canadians more savings as the cost of everything is rising. The finance minister, after an agonizingly long delay, finally announced the half measure of temporarily delaying the Liberal gas tax hike planned after Labour Day. After even more months of Conservative pressure, the Liberals are now offering an extension to this delay. My constituents would like to know why the government keeps putting up such a tremendous fight against bringing Canadians long-term relief from this tax.

If the Liberals are now admitting that fuel taxes matter and that affordability depends on this critical necessity being cheap, then why can they not commit to permanently reducing the cost of fuel for everyone? It seems almost like the Liberals get a kick out of constantly keeping Canadians on the edge of whether or not this tax will be suspended or renamed. Keep in mind that energy poverty leads to real poverty, and our economy writ large is in crisis.

I was listening earlier to members from the government talk about this bill as a great measure for Canadians. One of them described it as an example of the Prime Minister's “commitment to affordability”. A temporary suspension of the fuel tax is not a commitment. It is another Liberal half measure getting rolled out after months of Conservative pressure. At a time when citizens need real relief from the Liberal-created affordability crisis, Conservatives are calling for the government to remove all federal taxes on gas and diesel until at least Canada Day 2027.

Gas prices have skyrocketed nearly 26%. The measure would save Canadians up to 25¢ a litre and would bring as much as $1,000 in savings for the average Canadian family. This is not a small or negligible sum. When Canadians are facing an unprecedented cost of living, where many are $200 away from not being able to balance their chequebook at the end of the month, all savings matter.

Of course, it is more than just Conservatives who are demanding a permanent change. Polling shows that 63% of Canadians oppose the federal government from bringing back the fuel excise tax, and that includes 43% who strongly oppose it. When this many Canadians are against a fuel tax hike, the government has more than enough support to follow the Conservative plan to bring down the cost of fuel.

I want to quickly return to my neighbours. A family running two combines on a grain operation near Tabor will burn roughly 40,000 litres of diesel this fall on the two machines alone. At 25¢ a litre in federal fuel taxes, that is more than $10,000 on one harvest. That is $10,000 that is not going to new tires for the grain truck, not going to school clothes for the kids, not going to paying down the operating line that carries the whole year's risk and not circulating through the community. Farmers cannot pass that cost on. They do not set the price of wheat or canola. They take what the market gives them, and every extra dollar at the pump comes straight out of the family's bottom line.

The federal excise tax alone will make about $1,700 from one family this harvest. Every week that the government drags its feet on that tax, it is families in Bow River who will pay for it. Canadians everywhere are feeling the pain of filling up their gas tanks. The best the Liberal government can do is offer a temporary suspension of their gas tax. That is not good enough. If the Prime Minister is serious about a commitment to affordability, then this is a great opportunity to demonstrate his commitment by permanently removing the tax.

When the Prime Minister talks about his commitment to affordability, I would invite him to come to Bow River and stand in the field this October at 10 o'clock at night while a farmer and his son are running because the forecast calls for rain. He should ask the family what a temporary half-measure tax suspension means to them. They will say they need certainty and need to know what the cost of fuel will be.

In conclusion, Conservatives are not asking for anything complicated. We are asking for the common-sense elimination of this and other fuel taxes instead of an insincere half measure. Canadians are looking for real relief, and a temporary measure will not cut it. I hope the government will be able to get on board with this demand as it addresses this important matter.

[Pauline Rochefort, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Rural Development)]

Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to a point that I think is important.

My colleague commented on our Prime Minister being an adviser to a former government. I simply want to point out that he was named the governor of the Bank of Canada by a Conservative prime minister. The same Conservative prime minister, at the recent investor summit, praised our current Prime Minister in the House of Commons. I simply want to hear my colleague comment on how the citizens in his riding feel about our current Prime Minister.

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting question from the member across the way. By and large, the constituents in my riding do not think that the current Prime Minister is really helping them with affordability. They look at the history of the Liberal government over the past 11-plus years, and they see typical, standard Liberal dogma driving the narrative. This is not good. The current Prime Minister was the trusted adviser and the whisperer into the ear of the previous prime minister, and his fingerprints are all over the economic policy from the last Parliament.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the 10 years that Stephen Harper was the prime minister of this country are finally looked back on as a golden age in Canada, and I know that the Liberals have been taking our good ideas and running with them. Perhaps the Prime Minister will continue that legacy of Stephen Harper of signing free trade deals around the world, moving our economy away from the United States, building pipelines to both coasts and building LNG projects so we can feed the world the energy that it needs.

If the Liberal government continues to do those kinds of things, will we support those kinds of efforts?

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that was a fantastic question from my esteemed colleague from the biggest riding in northern Alberta.

As long as there is common sense, this is what Conservatives have been asking for forever: tax relief and affordability for Canadians. If the proposed legislation from the government makes sense, then it is easy to support, but if it is loaded up with poison pills, if it is contradictory internally or if it has all kinds of omnibus-type consequences, then it is really hard to support. If the government sticks to the issue and presents common-sense legislation, it makes it easier to support.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke of leadership in his speech. Real leadership is taking an interest in the cost of living and introducing a bill to extend the excise tax holiday in the the first week of Parliament's return. Leadership is implementing a range of measures, as we have done since the first day we were elected, to lower taxes for the middle class, make the school food program permanent or implement various employment insurance-related measures, such as temporarily suspending the one-week waiting period. That is the kind of leadership that helps Canadians cope with the cost of living. What is not leadership is talking about affordability in the House and then voting against every single measure when the opportunity arises.

I would like to know whether my colleague sees this bill as an example of our government's ongoing leadership in helping Canadians cope with the cost of living.

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an example of hypocrisy, the way I see it. This is, I think, a good bill. It would give affordability for Canadians, but it is short-term. If it is so good now, why was it not good six months ago? Why was it not good a year ago? Why was it not good five years ago, when these measures and taxes on fuel and energy were raised and raised again? It was the current Prime Minister who was whispering in the ear of the previous Parliament to institute the carbon tax. He thought that was fantastically good policy. That hypocrisy is on the table now for Canadians to see.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to address the House tonight. I want to start my remarks by talking about the kind of society we have been and the kind of society I would like us to be.

I recall that when I was elected in the 2015 election, which was right on the tail of the Harper years, various indicators showed that our country was doing well. At the time, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had won the election on the promise of “Well, maybe things are good, but we think we can do even better.”

At the time, I recall making an argument in the House about the strength of our society being shaped so much by our commitment to equality of opportunity and by the fact of Canada's combination of the policies we had and being a society where taxes were low, development was encouraged and economic activity could be pursued. It was also a society where there was a baseline of social programs in areas such as health and education that were available to everybody. This combination of a baseline of social supports and an environment in which new ideas, new investments and new businesses could start and grow was the right combination for facilitating a high degree of social mobility.

Somebody who came from a less privileged background could still reasonably aspire to be among the most successful in our country. This potential, this hope, could animate the dreams and imaginations of the next generation. This was a source of strength for our country, of prosperity, of opportunity and also of social cohesion. People saw themselves as having a kind of equal opportunity, an equal ability to pursue the Canadian dream, regardless of the background they came from.

I believe it is so important that we be, and restore our commitment to being, an opportunity society where people of all backgrounds and of all ages, particularly young Canadians, regardless of the family they came from and regardless of the circumstances, can have big dreams and can make those dreams a reality.

However, what I hear today when I talk to young Canadians is a great deal of frustration, loss of hope, and a sense that we have become divided as a society. We have become on the one hand a nation of people who already own their home, and on the other hand a nation of people who have no hope that they will ever own their home. We have become a nation of, in some cases, people who are doing well and who respond to our social media posts about people struggling by saying, “Well, I'm not struggling”, but then there are many Canadians who are struggling and who do not see the hope or the possibility of getting ahead anymore.

This is because 11 years of government policy has favoured elites and favoured incumbent holders of power at the expense of the people striving to get ahead. It has also pushed jobs and home ownership out of reach for more and more young people. We have become less of an opportunity society, and as a result, we have become more divided between those who are already at a certain level or position economically and those who struggle to even imagine that they could achieve the basic things that we associate with being able to achieve the Canadian dream.

The basic things that a young person seeks from a material perspective starting out are to be able to have a good job and to be able to afford a home. That foundation of job and home is the basis on which people are able to start a family and achieve those not just material but also critical personal goals in terms of having the children they want to have, building the life and setting up the future they want to be able to provide for the next generation. However, more and more young people struggle to find a job, cannot afford a home and are delaying family formation. Now we see that this is leading to a failure, in many cases, for people to achieve the family goals they want.

If we look at this statistically, the number of children people say they want on average compared to the number of children people are having on average demonstrates that many young Canadian families are not reaching the goals they have identified as wanting to pursue, which is much more than a material tragedy. It is something much deeper and more profound that is being lost. We see frustration, anger, hopelessness and increasing division as a result of the way we have declined in being an opportunity society.

The hope of the Conservative Party is to fight for those who are struggling and give voice to their concerns, but also to propose constructive policies that will restore the sense of hope and opportunity that has defined our country. We are shaped in every region of the country by a certain frontier spirit, a sense that through struggle and striving, an individual should be able to get ahead, have a home, have a job and provide the beautiful and simple things that their family is seeking.

While saying that there is so much more to do to restore that opportunity society, I note that the debate tonight highlights some areas in which Conservatives are winning the debate about key issues facing this country. Conservatives have for 10 years made arguments about the need to build nation-building infrastructure and about the destructive implications of the carbon tax, and we have won those debates. It does not mean that our proposals about repealing unjust taxation or building nation-building infrastructure have been fully implemented in government policy. We are still seeing many failures in terms of government action, but it is clear from the conversation, from the things being said back and forth, that we have won those debates.

We have also won important cultural debates. It was not that long ago that Liberals were constantly running down our heritage and history, attacking figures like our first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald. Stephen Harper's celebration of the Canadian victory in the War of 1812 was criticized by the Liberal establishment as promoting extreme militarism or some nonsense like that. Today, the government is saying more that recognizes the positive legacy of people like Isaac Brock and Sir John A. Macdonald. We can see that on some cultural issues and economic issues, Conservatives have been winning debates and advancing arguments. I welcome that. Sometimes Liberals talk as if it is some big political win that they have conceded major arguments that Conservatives have been making, but I am proud of the fact that on economic and cultural issues, Conservatives have been making the arguments and moving the ball forward.

We are doing it on the affordability issue as well. Conservatives have put forward proposals for tax relief for Canadians in terms of gas taxes, and tonight we are debating government legislation through which the government is saying, although not quite directly but by implication, that Conservatives were right. These are the kinds of measures they are putting forward because we have won those debates.

Conservatives can take pride in the fact that we are winning these arguments, but also recognize that there is more work to do, because the government, although piecemeal in conceding certain arguments, continues to have a broadly statist agenda when it comes to development. The Liberals continue to think that the big ideas, the big initiatives, the big push to get things done must be controlled through the centralizing power of government, whereas Conservatives believe in unleashing opportunity for everyone. We believe in rebuilding the opportunity society.

For instance, we supported the idea of having some exceptional circumstances for major projects to be able to move forward. However, what we proposed as a better path was reforming the impact assessment process in general so that proponents of projects large and small did not have to come cap in hand to government, and anyone with a big idea could see a path to getting it done.

While we are seeing some Conservative victories in terms of winning these arguments, there is so much more work that needs to be done to undo 11 years of damage under the Liberal government and to restore the opportunity society that all Canadians, particularly Canadian young people, are seeking.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague began his remarks by talking about the kind of society we want and what we want for our country's future. On this side of the House, we have a plan that translates into concrete measures aimed at strengthening the Canadian economy and making it more resilient, to ensure we have a stronger Canadian economy that gives us the fiscal capacity to support measures like the one we are debating tonight, that is, extending the suspension of the excise tax.

I think it is safe to say that Canadians have repeatedly demonstrated their confidence in our plan for Canada, whether during the last general election or in the six by-elections, including the most recent ones that took place over the summer.

I would like to ask my colleague whether the results of the recent by-elections are a sign of the public's confidence in our plan, particularly as it relates to building a stronger economy that meets everyone's needs.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will just point out to the member that our job in this House is to have substantive conversations about substantive issues. He may take pride in particular by-election results. In my 11 years in this place, I can say that those are the kinds of results that we see ebbs and flows in.

What Canadians will ultimately judge members of Parliament on are the results they see. It will not, in the final analysis, be on the big speeches, the promises, the meetings and the summits. Those things can be steps towards the implementation of concrete policy changes, but in the final analysis, Canadians will ask, am I better off or worse off as a result of the decisions of the government? That is the question.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the carbon tax happened during the election, but in this Parliament we are at a really explicit point in time where the Liberals are taking our ideas and running with them. Now, I just want to bring us back a couple of decades to where Stephen Harper started an ambitious agenda of making it so we were not so reliant on the United States. He probably started that back in 2007 or maybe prior to that.

I am wondering if the member can just reflect on some of those great ideas that Stephen Harper had, and if we can push the Liberal government to pursue some of those great ideas.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member raises a great point in terms of debates that Conservatives have won, which I was talking about in my speech. When Stephen Harper took office, we were very limited in our free trade agreements. We had free trade in North America and were very limited beyond that. Stephen Harper subsequently negotiated trade deals with countries representing over 60% of the world's GDP with a massive expansion of our trading relations with like-minded democracies in Europe and in the Asia-Pacific. That was a huge step forward in terms of diversification and reducing our dependence on the United States. However, in 11 years of Liberal government, we did not seize on that opportunity because roadblocks were put in the way of infrastructure projects and of other kinds of developments that would have allowed us to seize the opportunities presented by these new trade deals.

Diversification in terms of strengthening partnerships with like-minded democracies is a great concept. It is not new. It is just that we have lost 11 years of what could have been progress.

[Doly Begum, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I go out in my riding to talk to my community and my colleagues go out to talk to their community, one of the things we hear about is how much people appreciate a leader who understands what is going on in this country, sees the issues and does exactly what people want him to do. The Prime Minister is working hard.

One of the things that fascinates me is how this government talks about some of these issues, but when it comes to supporting the bills, the legislation that actually supports people, those members are not there. Why?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of who is going to be there or not there, I want to respectfully say to this member that I know she was an NDP member of a provincial parliament previously, and that she referred to the Liberals as being “untrustworthy”, “conniving” and “the surest path to greater evil”. I wonder if this member would speak openly about some of the policy decisions of the government now and whether she is comfortable with them.

It is amazing to see how so many Liberals have swallowed themselves whole. I am glad we are winning the debates on things like cutting taxes, but it is hard to understand how those members reconcile—

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for years Conservatives have been calling on the Liberal government to provide meaningful relief to Canadians. We have raised concerns about the rising costs of gas, transportation and groceries, and have warned of the pressure facing families, workers, seniors and small businesses.

Today, the government is extending a fuel tax relief measure that it originally said would be temporary. Why is that? It is because the economic reality has proven Conservatives right. Gas taxes matter. The price Canadians pay at the pump matters. When the government adds taxes to fuel, those costs spread throughout our entire economy.

Gas is not a luxury for most Canadians. It is an unavoidable expense. People need to get to work. Parents need to take their children to school, medical appointments and sports, and seniors rely on transportation to buy groceries and attend appointments. Businesses need fuel to move products and serve their customers. The truck driver delivering goods across the country feels the increase, as does the farmer operating machinery, the construction worker driving to a job site and the small business paying for deliveries, which ultimately results in Canadians paying more at the grocery store. Every added expense along the supply chain is passed down to families buying food, clothing and other everyday essentials.

That is why Conservatives fought the Liberal government's proposed increases to fuel taxes. After months of Conservative pressure, the Liberals have now been forced to delay that increase until early next year. I will say, any relief for working Canadians is welcome, but let us be clear, this is not the result of a government that suddenly understands affordability. It is the result of Canadians speaking out and Conservatives refusing to back down.

The government's own announcement recognizes that truckers, farmers, home builders, construction workers and delivery companies benefit from fuel tax relief. Liberals previously argued that the fuel taxes had little impact on affordability. Now, by extending this relief, they are admitting that lower fuel taxes reduce costs throughout our economy. If suspending the tax helps Canadians today, then keeping fuel taxes low should be a priority. This short extension is another Liberal half measure. It does not provide the long-term relief that Canadians need. Gas prices have risen by 25.7%, energy costs have increased by 16.6% and transportation costs have climbed by 7.8%, while grocery prices have risen by another 3.1%. These are not just numbers. They determine whether a parent can afford to drive to work, whether a senior can pay the rent and still buy groceries, or whether a small business can continue employing local workers.

In Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, I hear these stories every day. Neil is a 63-year-old resident who came to my office looking for help because he was struggling to pay his rent. As we looked through the programs that were supposed to be available to him, he learned that he did not qualify for many of them. Neil began tearing up in my office. Now at 63 years old, he is looking for a second job just to keep a roof over his head. That should alarm every single member in the House. A Canadian who has worked hard and contributed through his life should not have to take a second job at 63 simply to survive. Our seniors should not be returning to the workforce because they cannot afford rent, groceries and transportation.

Here is the reality for too many Canadians: higher taxes, raising prices, unaffordable rent, growing debt and less hope that the next month will be any easier. The Liberals would have Canadians believe that this is normal. The government needs to stop telling Canadians how well they are doing and start listening when they say they are falling behind.

Canadians understand something that Liberals have ignored for far too long, which is that taxing fuel makes life more expensive. That is why the Conservatives are calling on the government to remove all federal taxes on gas and diesel. That means removing the 7¢ per litre imposed by the clean fuel regulations, taking the GST off fuel and permanently cancelling the industrial carbon tax. Together, these measures could save Canadians up to 25¢ per litre and as much as $1,000 per year for the average family. That would be real relief, not another temporary pause or announcement designed to get the government through the next few months.

Canadians need lower prices that they can actually see when they fill their tank, buy groceries and pay their monthly bills. Across the country, people are skipping meals, relying on food banks, putting the cost of groceries on credit cards and working multiple jobs just to stay afloat.

At the same time, the Liberal government has recorded almost $26 billion in foreign aid spending over the last two years. That includes about $460 million to Ethiopia, $340 million to Haiti, $312 million to Bangladesh, $306 million to the Democratic Republic of Congo, $275 million to Mozambique, $265 million to Tanzania and $238 million to South Africa. In times like this, every dollar must be tied to measurable results and spent in Canadians' national interest. That standard has not always been met. The Auditor General previously found that Global Affairs Canada could not properly show whether $3.5 billion in foreign aid spending under its feminist international assistance policy was actually improving conditions for women and girls. That is not accountability.

We need to stop sending our taxpayer dollars overseas. We should cut the gas tax instead. We are the Canadian government. We should be looking out for Canadians. Canadians deserve to know where their money is going, how it is being used and what results it is producing. Instead of increasing costs for families buying groceries, it should eliminate wasteful spending and bring those savings home.

It should also take a serious look at its priorities before telling struggling Canadians that there is no money available to help them. Canadians should not have to choose between filling their vehicle and putting food on the table. Seniors should not have to choose between paying rent and buying medication. Parents should not have to tell their children that they cannot attend hockey practice because the cost of driving has become too high. Small business owners should not have to lay off workers because taxes and transportation expenses have destroyed their bottom line.

Canada is a strong and generous country, but a government cannot continue trying to help everyone everywhere while ignoring the people struggling here at home. The Liberals' decision to delay their fuel tax increase proves that Conservative pressure works. It confirms that fuel taxes contribute to higher prices and that relief is possible when the government is finally forced to listen. However, Canadians need more than a temporary extension. They need a government that respects how hard they work for every dollar, controls its spending, lowers taxes and puts their needs first.

Conservatives are proud that our pressure helped secure this relief, but our work is not finished. We will keep fighting to remove federal taxes from gas and diesel; lower the cost of food, transportation and housing; and defend seniors such as Neil who deserve dignity and security after a lifetime of hard work. Canadians have carried the burden of the current government's costly policies long enough. It is time for lower taxes and bringing down the cost of living for Canadians first. The first responsibility of the Government of Canada must be to the people of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my colleague shared stories of constituents in his riding having to do with the cost of living.

What does he tell people when they ask him, “Why did you vote against a tax cut that could help me if I am in the middle class? Why did you vote against the national school food program for my school-aged children? Why did you vote against affordable child care services for my children? Why did you vote against suspending the one-week waiting period for employment insurance?”

When he tells us these stories, I wish I had the full picture. How does my colleague justify these votes to the constituents who come to see him to talk about the cost of living?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I would remind the member to ask his questions through the Chair.

The hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the stories I hear from my riding are these: “Keep fighting for me. Keep trying to lower taxes. Keep the Liberal government accountable. We trust in you, and we know that you are going to go to Parliament to fight for us”, just as I am fighting today to cut all the fuel tax for Canadians to put money back in their pocket.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek cited some relatively small amounts of money that have been sent overseas to the poorest of the poor. I do not know if he is aware that the Liberals broke their election platform promise to not cut foreign assistance, and they took another page out of the Conservatives' platform by cutting $2.7 billion from overseas development assistance.

Does my colleague agree that we should make sure that the Canadian pension plan, the over $714 billion that we have contributed over our working lives, is invested in Canada? The majority of it is not invested in Canada. A great deal is invested in the U.S. Should we not repatriate that with a change to the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act?

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member raises some very good points. The Liberals did break their election promise, but they have also broken a lot of other promises. We were supposed to get a deal in July.

Going back to her question, I agree with her. I agree that Canadian money should stay in Canada, but what can I say? The Prime Minister holds about 93% of his stock assets in U.S. companies, so why do we think he would do anything different?

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek for his speech this evening. He is fighter for his community and it is better for having him as its representative.

What we are debating tonight is in no short order a half measure. It goes a bit of the way, and we will take any relief we can get for Canadians. What does the member think we should be doing next to bring more relief for Canadians in this country?

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question. He also fights very hard for his community.

What should we be doing? There is a lot, but we need to start with getting rid of the fuel tax. It is the one thing that Canadians can feel right away.

I would propose, although this is not the forum for it, our Conservative economic plan. We have identified $150 billion in savings that Canadians can benefit from. We are starting here, but we have proposed a plan that I hope my colleagues on the other side will at least take a look at.

We are in a trade war; make no mistake about that. The President has put unjustified tariffs on us, and we have to fight against that. In order to do that, we have to look at Canadians first. We need to keep money in Canada. We need to look at wasteful spending, of which we have identified 150 billion dollars' worth, come together and work on that for the sake of Canadians and for the sake of moving forward.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to talk about an issue close to many Canadians' hearts, including many residents in my riding: affordability. Despite the Prime Minister's words that he thinks affordability is the best it has been for a decade, Conservatives know that is just simply not the case.

I want to start tonight by reading some stories from constituents who have written to me over the past several months while Parliament has been absent to tell me about the troubles and difficulties they are facing in paying their bills and having money at the end of the month.

I will start with Barbara from Beaverton in my riding. She wrote to me, “I'm a single person. I own a home and do home care. I work a lot. I try to balance at the end of the month, but I'm still short.” Barbara works hard and tries to budget, but she is still short at the end of the month. She is short at the end of the month because of rising costs in Canada, inflation caused by inflationary spending by 10 years of Liberal government and higher costs, including fuel costs, which we are talking about tonight.

Next is Sheila, who is from Sutton in my riding, in my community. She wrote to me and said, “We are seniors and now have to be on a strict budget to be able to afford simple meals.” That is not dignity in retirement. Seniors should be able, in a rich country like Canada, to put more than simple meals on the table after a lifetime of hard work.

Cindy from Beaverton, wrote to me and said, “We are farmers, and everything costs more, from diesel to fertilizer, to parts, steel, repairs and maintenance.” It is tough for farmers. I come from a community that has a strong history of agriculture, as do many of my colleagues in the Conservative Party. It is tough being a farmer, working hard, paying bills and trying to put food on not only their table, but the tables of thousands of Canadians across the country.

However, everything costs more, as Cindy said. Unfortunately, we have a government that does not recognize that, does not acknowledge that and does not understand agriculture in any way, shape or form. In fact, the Prime Minister says that Canadians do not use steel. We know that Cindy and her family operate farm machinery made of steel to put food on our tables.

That is an example of one thing that is not included in this temporary measure: the indirect effects of the industrial carbon tax on farmers, which farmers have been talking about for months now, but there has been no response from the government.

Carol, also from Beaverton, wrote to me and said, “We are blessed to have a tax-free pension and have no mortgage, and we are in our eighties and have few needs, but our younger generation, they need help through this crazy time.”

Similarly, Char from Stouffville, who is also concerned about young people and her children, wrote, “We are retired and managing since we own our home and don't drive much these days, but our children are affected by gas, mortgage, grocery prices, so cut the red tape, let the economy build and thrive, reduce tax.”

These families are concerned about the next generation, and so am I, and so are many of my younger colleagues in the Conservative caucus, because it is the next generation that has to pay the debts of the government. We are facing the largest budget deficits in this country outside of the pandemic, and every dollar spent by the government that is borrowed is a future tax dollar that must be paid by the next generation.

Nowhere is affordability more acute for the next generation than when it comes to housing, an issue I have raised many times in the House and will continue to raise, because the next generation is getting short-changed. They were promised the Canadian dream: Work hard, play by the rules, save money, plan and then buy a home and start a family. However, that is not happening. That is not happening at all for the next generation, who are continually locked out of housing. Despite lots of talk from the other side, we have no action. There is very little action.

In fact, we know exactly how much action we have received from the government because the Minister of Housing told us last week and again today in the House. For all of the government's effort over the last 18 months, including a new bureaucracy, billions of dollars allocated to it and more staff, what have the Liberals done?

The government has committed to, not built but committed to build, 19,000 new housing units. Its target was 500,000. After 18 months, it has 19,000 units to show for it, and they are not even built, just committed to. That is a drop in the bucket. It is de minimis. It is irrelevant. The Liberals have not even started to address the problem, despite their promises that we would build at speeds never seen before, that never since the Second World War would the government move at such haste. The result of its haste is 19,000 units out of a 500,000-unit target.

In fact, the government's own housing agency, the CMHC, says that this year alone, the government will be hundreds of thousands of units of housing below their target. They estimate a gap of anywhere between about 180,000 to 230,000 homes just this year, not even going into the future. We are going in the wrong direction.

Despite the government and the Prime Minister saying that affordability has never been better and that rents have never been lower, we are not building any homes. It gets worse than that because, this year, CMHC has reported that we will build fewer homes in 2026 than we built in 2025. Not only is the gap getting bigger, but we are going in the wrong direction.

I sympathize with Carol and Char, who are concerned about the next generation and their ability to afford to live in the country, buy a home and start a family. Lastly, Christine from Stouffville wrote to me that, for the costs arising for basic living expenses, such as food, utility and transportation, there seems to be no break in sight.

I agree. There seems to be no break for Canadians when it comes to the government. It has been 11 years with no break and higher costs on all things, whether it is fuel, housing and even one's taxes going up every year. I sympathize with my constituents, and I am here to tell them tonight that we will continue to fight for an affordable Canada for them. We will continue to drag the government kicking and screaming to do the right thing, because it seems that we always have to drag it to the right place.

As for the proposal we are speaking to tonight, the suspension of some taxes on some fuels, but not all taxes on all fuels, of course, it is a good start, but it is just a start. We do not want a pat on the back for this. I do not care about a pat on the back for this. We want relief for Canadians, and that is good enough, but the Liberals opposed this measure. They might have collective amnesia but, just a few months ago in May, we proposed this measure during an opposition day motion. Liberal member after Liberal member got up and told us that this was a bad idea and they voted against it.

We knew it was a good idea in May and, thankfully, the government has changed its mind, or at least half of the way there, to get us to where we are today. It does not go far enough. It does not extend the cut long enough and it does not include other hidden taxes on fuel. I will just raise one example that it does not include. The clean fuel regulation is a big one. It is a big one on the cost of gasoline and diesel, as it is 17¢ a litre on gasoline and 16¢ a litre on diesel.

One does not have to take my word for it. That is the analysis from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Moreover, the clean fuel regulation, the Parliamentary Budget Officer says, is a regressive tax. That means it hurts households that can least afford it. He said, at the time, that “lower income households generally spend a larger share of their income on transportation and other energy-intensive goods and services compared to higher income households”.

I seem to remember the member for Kingston and the Islands getting up and opposing our opposition day motion, saying that, actually, it would be wealthy Canadians who would benefit the most from this tax. When we have economic advice like what we are getting from the member for Kingston and the Islands, it is no wonder we have the deficits we have.

Let me conclude by saying a message to my residents. I will continue to get up in the House and tell their stories and drag the government to do the right thing every day, because we are fighting for a more affordable Canada for all Canadians.