Debates of Sept. 22nd, 2026

Canadian Fuel Affordability Act

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

Madam Speaker, Conservatives have been pointing out all day that the new Prime Minister has been implementing the Conservative agenda, at perhaps about half speed. I am just wondering if my hon. colleague has any comments about that.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, the first time we talked about cutting taxes on gas was in May 2022. After that, we repeated the ask in June 2024, and we tabled a motion here to cut all taxes on gas on April 2026, which was four days before the government put its own proposal on the table.

Yes, the government is taking a lot of ideas from the Conservatives.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for Edmonton West.

I am very pleased to take part in today's debate on this bill, which affects all Canadians, including the people of my riding, University—Rosedale, in downtown Toronto, where the issue of affordability is of great concern to us.

Like all members of the House, I spent my summer listening to my constituents. At the doorsteps, on the streets, and at festivals and fairs, I heard two things. First, Canadians understand very well that we are in an economic situation that is not entirely in our control. They know full well that the rapidly changing global landscape around us is creating uncertainty for our businesses, our workers and Canadian families, and that these are factors beyond our control. However, they also understand that there are factors we can control, and they expect our government to do everything in its power where it can.

In this situation, our government is focusing on what it can control. That is why we are focusing on building a stronger economy over the medium term while reducing costs and increasing our support measures for the public during this very difficult period. More specifically, our government is well aware of the pressures associated with rising gas prices. Across the country, we have recently seen gas prices skyrocket, and this is causing financial hardship for many Canadians, including those in my riding.

As this House knows well, in order to help Canadians and businesses manage these pressures, our government introduced a temporary suspension of the federal fuel excise tax on gasoline, diesel and aviation fuels. We will all recall that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance and National Revenue initially announced this important measure this spring. We suspended the full amount of tax with an initial sunset date of September 7 of this year, but our approach to this excise tax has always been flexible. Over the course of the summer, it became increasingly apparent that gas prices would remain volatile due to ongoing geopolitical pressures and supply chain disruptions, so we have acted accordingly.

Earlier this month, the government further extended the temporary suspension until January 31, 2027, with a 50% reduction in the regular excise tax from February 1 through March 31, 2027, which of course is what brings us to today's debate. Much as the initial suspension provided real, tangible and immediate relief to Canadians at the pump, that measure was part of a broader suite of measures to address rising everyday costs for Canadians and businesses in the transport, food, agriculture, housing, construction and delivery sectors. There is a reason this measure has support across the political spectrum. It is precisely because we all know that in the current climate, we must do all we responsibly can to reduce operating costs across the economy and reduce pressures on the food, agriculture, housing, construction and delivery sectors in particular.

When I think about the people in my riding who need this measure the most, I think about two groups in particular. The first are the individuals who work in the care economy in downtown Toronto, in hospitals, home care and long-term care homes, often commuting long distances to get to their jobs in the downtown core or traversing the city multiple times a day to serve different clients, clients who are our family members, to give them a shower, to bring them food and to attend to their health needs. For those people, a small break at the pump is significant in their weekly budgets, and we owe it to them to do what we can. The second group are the small businesses in my riding that fear seeing the cost of their inputs rise as the price of transporting them increases. Small and medium businesses, major targets of the current round of unjustified and illegal tariffs, need this protection in order to be able to plan and invest in their own success.

This relief is as important to the people of University—Rosedale as it is for everyone across the country, but we all know that alone it is not enough. That is why it is just one of several measures that we have put forth and have been debating actively in this House as part of our vibrant democracy. We put these measures forth to alleviate the pressure from the high cost of fuels on Canadian household budgets.

For far too many people in Canada, groceries and essentials have been too expensive for too long. We all know that the pandemic caused a global spike in inflation, which drove up the cost of groceries and essentials for all of us. Food prices have risen faster than overall inflation, because of shocks to global supply chains due to tariffs, weather events related to climate change and, of course, geopolitical disruptions.

To support those most affected by rising food prices, in January 2026, our government announced the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit to help more than 12 million Canadians afford the essentials they need.

Together, those measures will enable a family of four to get nearly $2,000 this year and around $1,400 per year for the next four years.

Our government is also delivering significant reforms to our tax system and other areas of public policy during this affordability crisis. In my riding, where the dream of home ownership in the core of Canada's largest city has been a dream for too many for too long, the movement we have made on housing has been very significant. Our government has eliminated the GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes up to $1 million and reduced the GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes between $1 million and $1.5 million. It is these kinds of actions that bring home ownership back into the realm of possibility for so many young people who live in my riding.

We have also made the national school food program permanent, providing school meals for up to 400,000 children each year and saving participating families up to $800 on groceries annually, which is significant for a lot of people.

We have also introduced automatic federal benefits starting with the 2026 tax year. I would like to spend just a moment to say a bit about why this step is so important to me personally.

During my 20 years as a practising family physician, I regularly saw patients who I knew should be accessing income supports of various kinds but were not accessing them. Application processes for federal and provincial programs are complex. At times, we know they can feel invasive and even humiliating. At other times, they are just simply confusing. For some people, the requirement to file taxes on a very low income does not make it to the top of the priority list. Those patients are now my constituents, and our commitment to automatic tax filing is a major improvement for them.

The Canada Revenue Agency will be able to help eligible Canadians who do not file their taxes by preparing and filing a return on their behalf. Before this happens, of course, they will have the opportunity to review the information and make necessary changes, but this means that people who may not have the time, resources or ability to navigate the tax system on their own will have another way to access the supports that are available to them and for which they are eligible, supports they deserve. Automatic filing and benefits will ensure that up to 5.5 million low-income Canadians automatically receive the benefits they qualify for.

This builds on other efforts to make it easier for Canadians to receive the benefits for which they are eligible. I am so proud to be part of a government that is beginning to break down those barriers.

Our plan is moving Canada's economy from reliance to resilience. Some of the biggest long-term payoffs of the transformation that we are undertaking will take time to be felt.

To ensure that Canadians have the support they need right now, the Government of Canada is acting quickly with measures that will serve as a springboard to the future.

To support Canadians through this global energy market disruption, we are delivering timely, meaningful and tangible relief for Canadians. It is my pleasure to support this bill.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for splitting her time with me today.

I am glad she brought up the issue of automatic enrolment. We actually studied it at public accounts. The Auditor General was quite pointed in her comments about the government's lack of interest in supporting Canadians. One of the biggest issues we found, and I found this both anecdotally and in the studies, is the lack of automatic enrolment for the guaranteed income supplement. This is not covered in the government's current plans. When will the federal government be introducing automatic enrolment for seniors who could benefit from the GIS?

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

Madam Speaker, I think the member opposite's question is an important one. There are, of course, all kinds of federal benefits that over time might be appropriate to consider as part of the automatic tax filing and automatic benefits suite of services. We are beginning this responsibly as a pilot to understand what it takes to undertake this work on behalf of low-income people in Canada. We are going to be learning and progressively improving the program as we go along. I look forward to joining the member in his advocacy for making as many programs automatic as we possibly can where it is realistic and possible.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about the challenges people are facing. One thing I will give her credit for is that she has been an incredible champion for calling for universal pharmacare.

We know that in her home province, seniors are cutting pills in half because they cannot get the medicine they need when they need it. It was just last September that the Prime Minister assured the Canadian public that he was going to sign pharmacare agreements with all of the provinces and territories that had not gotten on board. Here we are, a year later, and not a single agreement has been signed in the last 12 months, including in her home province.

Is my colleague going to be the champion to get those deals done? Is she still committed to universal pharmacare to ensure that people are not cutting pills in the country and are using their health card, not their credit card, to access the medicines they need?

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

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister has spoken passionately about his commitment to ensuring that Canadians have access to the critical public services they need. In my home province of Ontario, luckily there are not seniors cutting pills in half, because all seniors are covered by the provincial public drug plan. However, it is true that there are people across the country who continue to struggle with the cost of their prescription medications. The work toward pharmacare is not complete, and I certainly continue to believe that no one in the country should be cutting pills in half because they cannot afford them.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Madam Speaker, I was wondering what to ask my colleague, and she actually answered my question in her speech.

I recalled that before she became such an exceptional member of Parliament, she was an equally exceptional family doctor. She talked about all the programs we have put in place, including the Canada child benefit, the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, the Canadian dental care plan and a program that is particularly important to me, the national school food program. I am sure that when she looked after people in her previous life, they were grateful to receive assistance from various levels of government and from various organizations.

Can she tell us whether the people receiving these supports are actually seeing any improvement in their quality of life?

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

What we know, Madam Speaker, is that what we call the determinants of health involve more than just the care that Canadians receive at the doctor's office or at a hospital. Above all, the foundations of the determinants of health have to do with the underlying factors that shape health—whether it be economic well-being, nutrition, housing, or the environment. That is why I wanted to come here and contribute to the work of the House of Commons. In my opinion, investing in these programs is precisely what it means to invest in the health of my community.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to such stupendous applause today. I thank both members for cheering me on.

I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-38, what I call a half-measure tax cut. Why is it a half-measure? Well, the Conservatives for a long time have been pushing for a more extensive gas tax cut.

Madam Speaker, are you interrupting me?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I apologize. I have a paper in my hand and I have to read it before 5 p.m.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Calgary Crowfoot, The Economy; the hon. member for Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, Employment; the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, The Economy.

The hon. member for Edmonton West may resume.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned, the Conservatives are pushing for a more extensive gas tax cut to make life more affordable for Canadians. Last May, in fact, we put through an opposition day motion calling for the government to offer Canadians immediate relief by ending all federal taxes on gas and diesel for the rest of the year, including the GST; and permanently scrapping the clean fuel standard. We then called for it to be completely eliminated up until Canada Day next year. Of course, we saw that the Liberals had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to offer a partial tax break to Canadians.

The price of gas is at probably an all-time high from what I have seen in my many years. It is $1.81 a litre in Edmonton, of all places, but I understand the provincial government is offering a 13¢ cut, coming on October 1. I just heard that today. More important, the price of diesel fuel has gone through the roof, at about $2.80 to $2.90 a litre. A lot of Canadians, when they think of diesel, just think of the crazy hippie down the road still driving the Volkswagen Rabbit on diesel or perhaps someone driving a big truck on diesel. They do not understand that diesel fuel is very much the lifeline of Canadian industry, farming and trucking. Where the price of diesel goes, so goes inflation.

People who want to geek out on something should take a look at something called the crack spread. Generally simplified, that is the spread between the price of refined products and the price of oil, and it is at an all-time high right now. If they want to look into it more I suggest they follow a chap named Richard Dias on Twitter. He talks about it a lot. It is a coming problem for Canadians because they see the price of oil being one thing, but the price of gas and diesel, the refined products, is decoupling in a lot of ways from the price of oil and going even higher. Again, as go diesel prices, so go food costs and many other costs.

I am glad that the government is at least offering some partial relief at the pumps. Again, it is unfortunate that it has had to be nagged into extending it, and only partially, but even a partial cut is better than no cut at all. It helps Canadians now. Keeping fuel taxes low should remain a priority going forward. For years, we have seen the current government claiming the carbon tax was not inflationary and fighting to keep the carbon tax. Like caving on the carbon tax, I am glad the Liberals caved a bit on extending the fuel tax rebate at least a bit longer. Currently, it is suspended only to January 2027, then resumes at 50% and then the full amount returns on April 1, 2027. Basically, the Liberal government is putting an expiry date on affordability.

I mentioned at the beginning of my speech that the Conservatives put through an opposition day motion to eliminate all taxes on gas and diesel, etc., back in May, and the current Liberal government voted the motion down.

I want to quote some of the Liberal members when they were arguing against a tax rebate for Canadians or a reduction of gas taxes. I will start with my friend and colleague from Winnipeg North. He said, “Why the hypocrisy from the Conservative Party of Canada when it comes to the issue of affordability?” This is the same member whose interventions I stopped counting at 40 times. He stood in this House at least 40 times during the last couple of years, defending the carbon tax as being a boon for Canadians for affordability. In May, he was arguing against further tax cuts on gas and now he is saying it is a panacea for everything. It is funny how, when the Conservatives proposed a gas tax cut, it was bad but now it is good. I am going to continue with the hypocrisy line a bit longer. As for the finance minister who introduced the bill, I counted over the last couple of years that he stood 25 times in this House defending the carbon tax. Every time the Conservatives put through a motion to eliminate the carbon tax, the finance minister, who is all about affordability now, stood and defended the carbon tax. The finance minister also stated that a gas tax is really not that important. Because 80% of the price of fuel was because of oil, therefore a tax change did not matter.

Continuing on, a Liberal member stated that what we need to do is reduce taxes in ways that are responsible and to continue to invest in critical social programs. In May, the Liberals were arguing against a tax cut, but now a tax cut is good. A tax cut was bad before, but a tax cut is good now. Again, it is hypocrisy.

Another member, a senior member, stated basically that tax cuts to gas are bad because they only help the rich: “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... It does not make any sense”.

Guess who actually says gas taxes are progressive and disproportionately hurt low-income Canadians. It is a bunch of far-right-wing think tanks such as the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the Canadian Labour Congress and the Smart Prosperity Institute. The government was actually stating in May that it did not want to cut taxes, because it would have only helped the super wealthy. Even though the PBO and others stated the carbon tax disproportionately hurt low-income Canadians, the government argued in May that tax cuts only help the wealthy. What are we doing today with Bill C-38? We are debating a tax cut. I guess super wealthy back then was different than super wealthy now.

He went on and said, “What the Conservatives are proposing is more of a benefit for the ultrawealthy”, so I have to ask the Liberals why a tax cut in May was for the ultra-wealthy and a tax cut now is not for the ultra-wealthy. Are they just completely misinformed or perhaps, as the member for Winnipeg North states, “hypocrites”?

The defence minister said, “[Conservatives know] that this handful of tax changes [that they had proposed in May] are not going to contend with the economic challenges we are facing in the United States. They are not going to contend with the Ukrainian war. They are not going to contend with the gulf war.”

The Minister of National Defence, in June, was attacking Conservative-proposed tax cuts. They were no good, because they were not going to do anything about the war in Ukraine nor the war in Iran, so I will invite any member of the Liberals to stand up in the questions period and tell me what has changed since the minister of defence said that tax cuts would not change what was going on in the States. Why now?

I am not arguing we should not do this tax cut. I am just saying we should do more, but I was calling out the hypocrisy of the Liberals who were fighting against Conservative proposals to cut taxes in May, and all of a sudden, under Bill C-38, the tax cuts not only are good and no longer help the “ultrawealthy”, as the Liberals say, but apparently, according to the minister of defence, they would fix the Ukrainian war, they would fix the war in Iran and the gulf and fix our issues with the U.S. It is wonderful.

Another member says it is “absolutely crazy” to make the claim that cutting gas taxes helps low-income people. Again, it was utterly crazy in May, but somehow good now. We know cutting taxes is good. Milton Friedman says he is in favour of any tax cut at any time. I would agree. I am glad the Liberals are doing this, but I just point out the hypocrisy of fighting a gas tax cut in May and all of a sudden saying it is a glorious thing to do now.

The member for Mount Royal complained that cutting gas taxes would hurt the environment. He also said that taxes have nothing to do with the price at the pump. Is that not amazing? A gas tax cut in May would have hurt the environment, and gas taxes had nothing to do with the price at the pump, but all of a sudden they do now. We also say fuel regulations do not add to the price Canadians pay at the pump, yet the PBO says it is going to be 17¢. Environment Canada says it will cost us at the pump.

I realize my time is up. I will end it here. I will open questions. I again thank the Liberals for finally listening to the Conservatives and bringing in a tax cut to help Canadians.

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, it seems we are in violent agreement in this House about the need to extend this excise tax, so I would like to use the member's speech as a launching-off point for a related conversation about affordability. He brought up the crack spread. Refining capacity globally is, of course, under severe stress. The Strait of Hormuz could open tomorrow, and I suspect because of refining challenges, that crack spread would grow, even, and so we must either increase refined supply or reduce demand to meaningfully address this in the long term.

Obviously, more refined capacity will take time. I was wondering if the member opposite had views or proposals on policies that could either increase supply or reduce demand for refined products.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, there is a much simpler answer to that, and that is to reduce the taxes on diesel. As the Conservatives have suggested, eliminate the GST on diesel, eliminate the clean fuel standard that is costing money, even according to the PBO and Environment Canada, and eliminate the industrial carbon tax. That would be the fastest thing to help reduce the price of diesel.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed sitting on the government operations committee with the member for a long time. He does great work there.

We got to work together. We got to examine the government's outsourcing. When we looked at the outsourcing for professional services, the Liberal government's spending skyrocketed to over $23 billion for professional services alone. Meanwhile, people are struggling to get their pensions, to get their EI or to get support from CRA.

Our offices are being inundated at a time when people are struggling with a cost of living crisis. Now the government is cutting more jobs and this austerity is going to lead to more outsourcing, because the work still has to get done. However, it is going to get done by for-profit companies.

Could my colleague speak about what he has seen at his office? Could he connect the dots between the impact of austerity and how that impacts people on the cost of living crisis? Maybe the member could speak about the outsourcing that is out of control, which the government promised to rein in.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do miss my colleague on the OGGO committee. I look forward to the day when he does return to join the government operations committee.

The member has brought up a lot of valid facts. One of the issues he talked about was outside consultants. The Liberal-friendly McKinsey, one of the most vile, reprehensible companies in the entire world that helped supercharge the opioid crisis, continues to receive contracts from the Liberal government. In committee, we actually heard government employees testify that work they proposed to do and could cover within their own bureaucracy was pushed out to McKinsey for no reason. We heard this again and again, whether it was to Deloitte, McKinsey or others.

The government should look at finding ways to save money for Canadians, and it could probably start with its management friends at McKinsey, Deloitte and all the other outside consulting companies.

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

Madam Speaker, I have an interesting point. The member no doubt remembers Erin O'Toole. During his time here, the Conservative Party changed and had a position of supporting a carbon tax.

Fast-forward to the election of Canada's new Prime Minister, who indicated before that election that he was going to get rid of the carbon tax. We can see the similarities there: Change in leader, change in policy, new direction. Does the member recognize that as a reality?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always wonderful to see the member here. He reminds me a bit of that Seinfeld episode with George Costanza when he was actually living underneath his desk. The member is here so much, I wonder if perhaps he is like George Costanza, setting up under his desk.

I am glad the member brought up a bit about the carbon tax. We actually counted, and we found 83 different members who denied that the carbon tax had an effect on inflation. Then last year, the public accounts came out and actually stated the government expected inflation to drop because it has actually eliminated the carbon tax. We see the same thing now with the industrial carbon tax and the clean fuel regulations. Liberal after Liberal says it has no effect. The PBO and Environment Canada itself have said there is a cost to it.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford.

Like most members, I spent the summer talking with folks in my riding. One of the issues that keep coming back to us as parliamentarians is the cost of living, the fact that everything is more expensive and the fact that businesses and families are indeed having trouble meeting their needs. At the same time, Canadians, at least in my riding, expressed their confidence in the government's action, in the government's plan and in the government's attempts to assist the Canadian economy.

What those folks in my riding told me, and I think it is quite right, is that difficulties and the impact on the cost of living, on the overall price levels, have come from a series of shocks that have hit our economy, shocks that have come from abroad. In fact, affordability and the cost of living are issues in Canada, in the United States, in France, in the U.K., in Germany, in Japan, in Brazil and all over the world. They come from the same source, and that source is the supply shocks we have had since 2022, ever since the invasion of Ukraine, followed by the very uneven recovery from the pandemic, which was happening at the same time. Later on, more recently, there are the very significant price shocks we have had as a result of the war in the Middle East.

These are global issues that have a real impact on pocketbooks and on Canadians' ability to face difficulties. We as a government have put in place a number of measures that help their bottom line and at the same time will contribute significantly to diversifying our economy, diversifying our markets, finding new markets and continuing to grow.

As an example, the World Bank, which I do not think can be confused with any sort of Liberal-friendly outfit, has stated:

Attacks on energy infrastructure and shipping disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz, which handles about 35% of global seaborne crude oil trade, have triggered the largest oil supply shock on record, with an initial reduction in global oil supply of about 10 million barrels per day. Even after moderating from their recent peak, Brent oil prices [remain very high, at around the $100 per barrel mark].

Energy prices will continue to remain high throughout the world, at least until the situation is addressed in the Middle East.

The chief economist of the World Bank added, “Governments must resist the temptation of broad, untargeted fiscal support measures that could distort markets and erode fiscal buffers. Instead, they should focus on rapid, temporary support targeted to the most vulnerable households.”

This is what we have been doing. This is what we are doing with Bill C-38, and this is what we will continue to do. We will be there to continue to support Canadian families with targeted and temporary support.

When we announced the fuel excise tax break back in the spring, it was to come to an end on September 7. Of course, by September 7, the situation was far from resolved in the Middle East. In fact, it is getting worse. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate that we extend this program for a few more months, until the end of January 2027. I think there is broad support in the House for us to do that.

On that, we have said that it will extend after January 31 for two extra months, so it will be a gradual withdrawal. The 10¢-a-litre excise tax relief would not be removed in one shot. It would be removed by 50% until March 31, and then the other 50% would be after March 31. There would be a gradual removal of this support, because as the World Bank and the IMF have pointed out, support for families has to be temporary and has to be targeted to the most vulnerable households.

This, in essence, is what we did with the groceries and essentials benefit. It is very targeted. In this case, it is support for five years, but it is very targeted to those most in need. As members will recall, the groceries and essentials benefit is modelled on the old GST rebate, which by definition is targeted to families at the lowest end of the scale.

Once again, it is important to resist the temptation to have broad, untargeted fiscal measures because we need to avoid distorting markets. We need to make sure that fiscal buffers remain. We do have the fiscal capacity now to do this, and that is why we are doing it, but it has to be temporary and it has to be targeted.

This support would reduce the pressure on prices at the pump. It may seem insignificant, but it is not. At 10¢ a litre, it is significant. The other issue we need to continue to monitor is that the industry itself does not adjust its margins and that this 10¢-a-litre reduction is fully passed on to the final consumer. We will continue to monitor markets very closely to make sure that there is no attempt to sidestep this measure.

Going back to the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, a family of four will receive $1,890 this year and about $1,400 a year for the next four years. Again, this is targeted to the families most in need. We are putting more money in the pockets of those who need it most, and we are also leaving more money in the pockets of the middle class with the middle-class tax cut that was implemented right off the bat when we came into power.

There are other measures we put in place with the last budget, and there is nothing to say that we will not be doing that again if need be. As long as support is targeted and temporary, I think we should do that. For the time being, in Canada anyway, we are not noticing any shortages of products. It is really a question of affordability that is caused by events completely beyond our control. These are global events that are affecting the same issue in all developed and developing nations.

The crucial point here is for the Canadian government to retain its fiscal buffers, its fiscal capacity to intervene, because we must continue to protect families. We will still have that fiscal capacity if we continue to be prudent.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, in 2022, when we had a huge spike in oil prices with the global shock from oil and gas, we saw a huge windfall in profits. A study came out that said 50% of the profits through that spike went to the top 1%. That is insane. Right now, we are dealing with something very similar.

If we look back in our history, during World War II, we implemented a 75% excess profit tax on oil and gas. We could apply that today. That would generate over $46 billion. Even if we scaled that back to 20%, it would generate enough money to cover what the Liberals are proposing today, and we could do that fivefold to take the pressure off people.

Why is the government not bringing in an excess profit tax? Why is the government protecting the top 1%? In the United States, 50% of profits in 2022, for example, and it is here in Canada too, went to the top 1%.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I just alluded to at the end of my remarks, we will continue to monitor markets to make sure that markets continue to function properly, and that is the extent of it. We believe that when markets function, resources are allocated in the most efficient way.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the things the member said in his remarks was that the problem is not a short-term problem and that he could see the government having to extend this again depending on the circumstances. Given the value that stability has to food prices in particular, why is the government not considering our recommendation that it should be extended right now permanently for the foreseeable future?

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Madam Speaker, indeed, as I pointed out, which is recommended by independent agencies like the World Bank and the IMF, governments should resist the temptation to put in place permanent measures that may distort markets.

In a period of need, as is the case now, we should put in place temporary measures. I do not know what will be happening in January. We do not know if the war will still be going on in the Strait of Hormuz and if crude oil prices will remain above $100, but at some point, the oil market will return to a more stable level, and at that time, the temporary measures will be removed.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. At the end, he told us that temporary, targeted measures should be adopted if necessary. Those were the two criteria he mentioned.

How does my colleague think that suspending the excise tax on all fuels, which applies to all Canadians, including the top 20% of income earners as well as the wealthiest 1%, qualifies as a targeted measure?

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is, in fact, a temporary measure. It is not as targeted as the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, for example. However, what we lose by having a more targeted measure for fuel prices, we quickly gain back. This is something that can be implemented quickly. That is what we did last April, and that is what we are continuing to do now. It is quick and temporary.