Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, the member says it is taxes. Just over a year ago, 18 months ago, Canada elected a new Prime Minister. The new Prime Minister and the government got rid of the carbon tax. That is 17¢ off a litre. The new government also put relief on the excise tax. That is 10¢ a litre. At the end of the day, the new government with a new Prime Minister in 18 months has done a great deal on the issue of affordability, and we continue to look at ways we can improve affordability. Why will the member not get on board and recognize good legislation when—

Mr. Speaker, in the last federal election, the Prime Minister made it very clear. He wanted us to be able to expand trade beyond the Canada-U.S.A. border. Back in July, I had the pleasure of being at the same lunch table with the Minister of International Trade. We had the opportunity to sit down with the Prime Minister and the President of the Philippines, where we talked a great deal about trade. Trade between Canada and the Philippines is an important step forward to expand opportunities to enhance our relationship. Two-way trade between Canada and the Philippines is critically important. Our Minister of International Trade is carrying the ball to ensure that we can achieve a trade agreement with countries like the Philippines, India and more.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that Bill C-39 is there to support and grow Canada's economy. All one needs to do is take a look at the last 18 months, where we have had a Prime Minister and cabinet going out and encouraging people to seek further trade opportunities for local businesses, to seek investments, to the degree that just a couple of weeks ago in Toronto, we saw half a trillion dollars. That is a historic amount of money, never before seen in Canada's history, because of the relationships with our Prime Minister. I would encourage the member of the Conservative caucus to look at the bigger picture. Would the Conservatives not recognize that the bill complements that half a trillion dollars' worth of commitments coming over?

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could provide her thoughts in regard to how the legislation is part of a bigger agenda the government has for building Canada stronger and healthier. A good example of that, as I have cited on numerous occasions, is the investment summit that the Prime Minister hosted, which generated close to half a trillion dollars of potential commitments coming to Canada. What impact is that going to have on our nation, and how is this legislation there to help support it?

Mr. Speaker, I welcome my friend back to the chamber. The member and the Conservative Party need to take a broader look at what is happening here. The Prime Minister just came back from a highly successful investment summit: half a trillion dollars, which is completely unheard of in Canadian history. This bill is part of building a stronger and healthier economy. Whether it is what took place in Toronto earlier this month, in attracting billions of dollars of investment, or ensuring that we can build projects, would the member not agree that we are on the right track to providing good-quality jobs and a stronger economy for the future of Canada?

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let us make it very clear. Under the 10 years of Stephen Harper, we actually saw zero inches of pipeline built going to the west coast through B.C. In the Trudeau era, the TMX was delivered. Now having said that, we have a new government and a new Prime Minister elected just last year. Over that year, they have attracted a great deal of investment. One needs to look at Toronto, where half a trillion dollars of investment is coming to Canada. This bill is an important aspect of that. While the member has not agreed, he should get on board, support the legislation and—

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister made a commitment to Canadians in the last election to build Canada strong and deal with issues like affordability and our health care system, not to mention the issue of crime and making our communities safer. However, building Canada strong means securing export markets. That is one of the reasons we now have 20-plus trade and security agreements since the Prime Minister was elected. It is the reason that in Toronto, just a couple of weeks back, the world came to Canada and made half a trillion dollars' worth of investments. That is a historic amount of money because of the leadership of the Prime Minister and the drive from this government. The legislation before us today is going to help us put that into place. Will the member give a clear indication that he will support the—

Mr. Speaker, a great deal of discussion has been taking place with the Prime Minister and our premiers. A great deal of discussion is taking place with the Prime Minister and world investors. What we saw just recently in Toronto was the world coming to Canada to meet with our premiers and our Prime Minister. A half-trillion dollars is a historic amount of money. The member makes reference to AI. He could talk to Premier Moe about how Saskatchewan is moving forward in collaboration with Ottawa on AI development. A historic amount of money is flowing into the province of Saskatchewan to build up the AI data. Does the member not believe that it takes some collaboration to get things done too?

Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague can go back to the part of his comments when he talked about the Toronto summit, an investment summit that attracted half a trillion dollars in commitments to invest in Canada, the lead-up that went into that, and how we can put that into the legislation that we are debating today. The world is looking at Canada, and it wants to invest in Canada. This legislation would help. Could the member provide his thoughts?

Madam Speaker, I think it is important that the member recognize, if she wants to reflect on history and talk about Stephen Harper, that we had the largest trade deficit under Stephen Harper. If she wants to talk about the hardest hit in the manufacturing industry in the province of Ontario, again, let us talk about Stephen Harper. Imagine if Stephen Harper, along with her leader, who sat around his cabinet table, did his job. What a difference that would have been. It is time that the Conservatives stopped thinking about Trudeau all the time and start reflecting on the new government that Canadians elected, with a new Prime Minister and 70 new Liberal MPs, and recognize that things have changed. People are looking at Canada and investing in Canada. Major projects are well under way.

Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that the bill will ultimately get to committee. We look forward to what the different stakeholders might have to say on the legislation. We look forward to what degree the Conservatives will position themselves on the legislation. I would like to think they would be inclined to support the legislation, or at the very least the principle of the legislation. We will see that at second reading. At the end of the day, it is all about building a stronger and healthier Canada. What we need to do is take advantage of a lot of the work that the Prime Minister and cabinet have been doing over the last 18 months. Whether it is on trade or investments, we are talking about a significant amount of positive change that is coming to Canada. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on that.

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives consistently want to go back to the Trudeau era. If they want to go back and do a comparison, they should do a nine-year comparison to Stephen Harper when he was prime minister and the manufacturing sector that lost a quarter of a million jobs in that sector. They can contrast that even to the years that the Conservatives dream of all the time: the Justin Trudeau years. At least there was growth in the manufacturing industry. If we get over the facts of the past and start focusing on where we are today and what we have been able to accomplish since the last federal election, members opposite will get a better understanding of why this legislation is so critically important to pass. It is because all Canadians in all regions of the country would benefit through the legislation. It is all about the theme going right from the election through to post-election and to this very day, which is to build a stronger, healthier Canada and an economy that works for all Canadians, and to protect our social programs, as the Prime Minister has done with several programs. The Prime Minister and the cabinet have been aggressively pursuing the issue of expanding Canada's economy beyond the Canada-U.S.A. border. Unlike the Conservatives, we do take the issue very seriously, to the degree that we have a Prime Minister who is committed to appealing to the world. The Minister of International Trade and others, such as the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Industry, continuously are in different countries, and are working within Canada, to attract opportunities for small businesses, and it is paying off in a very significant way. More than 20 trade and security agreements have been signed in the last 18 months. We have other trading opportunities. The Minister of International Trade is someone for whom I have an immense amount of respect and for whom I have done a lot of lobbying in regard to the Canada-Philippine trade agreement. I want a Canada-Philippine trade agreement. I was glad when we had the opportunity to meet with President Marcos over a lunch with the Prime Minister and those two leaders recognized that maybe 2026 can be the year for trade. The Prime Minister was also having discussions with the leadership in India, saying that we want to achieve that trade agreement, ideally even in the year 2026. Expanding those trade opportunities beyond the Canada-U.S. border is good for all of Canada. At the end of the day, that is how we are going to be able to protect our sovereignty. That is the way we are going to be able to ensure continual growth, protect important jobs that Canadians have and build upon this. These are difficult times with the relationship between Canada and the United States. The issue of Trump, tariffs and trade should be on our minds, because it is on the minds of constituents and on the minds of all Canadians, because it does have a real, tangible economic impact. We do not deny that. We recognize that, but we are not going to capitulate. We are still going to fight for the best deal we can with the United States, but we are not going to surrender sovereignty in any way in dealing with a final agreement, and we are going to continue to look at ways that we can not only enhance trade opportunities but also attract investment to Canada. There has not been a prime minister, I would argue, in the history of this country who has generated as much potential commitment to investment in Canada from outside Canada and has even retained some of the pension funds that have been flowing outside Canada. We are talking about billions of dollars, maybe half a trillion dollars, of investments, all within 18 months. It is more than just the government. I will concede that it has a lot to do with relationships. We have a Prime Minister who has an A++ relationship and background to be able to protect the interests of Canadians and to talk to other world leaders, whether in the political or financial investment areas. We had a good sense of that just a couple of weeks ago in downtown Toronto. Toronto was open to the world on behalf of Canada, and individuals, investors, premiers and indigenous leaders attended. There was a great deal of input involved in making sure our very first investment summit, which was an invitation to the world, was a success, and it was. We can think of it in terms of half a trillion dollars. Can any member of the House stand up to indicate whether, over an 18-month period of time, any prime minister in Canadian history has attracted that kind of investment commitments?

Madam Speaker, it is commitments to invest. That is an important point; I recognize that. If we travel outside Canada, as I know many members do, Canada is looked at in a very positive way. People are looking to Canada, in a way they have not in many generations, as a place to invest in, and hopefully we will see that all materialize. That is what I want, that is what this government wants and that is what many of the stakeholders want. We have seen people take off their partisan hats in order to make sure that this team Canada is going to work. Stephen Harper was a guest speaker at the summit and gave closing remarks. Premiers from different political parties participated. From my home province of Manitoba, Premier Wab Kinew not only participated by trying to get people to invest in the port of Churchill but also provided a tax incentive so investors prepared to invest in the port of Churchill would not have to pay sales tax. In terms of the port of Churchill, the Arctic Gateway Group is actually leading the charge. It actually comes from OneNorth, the owners. OneNorth is made up of 41 indigenous and northern communities from Manitoba and, I think, maybe one of the territories. This is something that has brought people together, recognizing that it is going to take a team Canada approach to build Canada strong. We can think in terms of the Major Projects Office. There are over two dozen major projects. The Major Projects Office opened just last year. I think it was in September 2025. It is already talking about billions of dollars in tangible investments. There are projects that deal with everything from mining to the port of Montreal, which I know, Madam Speaker, you would be happy to hear about, and to nuclear energy. There are all forms of projects out there. We have all come together and listed them off, and we are going to continue to push for them. We hope to see the Conservative Party onside.

Madam Speaker, I think it is important. When we think of union workers, they have a constitutional right to strike. I have always advocated that the best deal is a negotiated deal, and there is no doubt in my mind in regard to that. I have served in the Manitoba legislature. I can tell the member opposite that all sorts of political entities, whether New Democrats, Conservatives, Progressive Conservatives or Liberals, in provincial and federal governments have at times had a need to legislate workers back to work. Just recently, in the province of Manitoba, health care workers were told to go back to work by the provincial government. Unfortunately, in certain situations, the government is put in a very difficult position, but we believe that individuals have a right to strike, and the best agreement is a negotiated agreement. I hope that members will be open-minded about what is actually being proposed in this legislation.

Madam Speaker, that is unfortunate, and a good example would be the Canada Infrastructure Bank. The Canada Infrastructure Bank is constantly criticized by the Conservative Party of Canada. Conservatives have always said that it has done nothing and that we should get rid of it, but anyone can look into that. They should not believe the briefings from the Conservative backroom, because the reality is that the Canada Infrastructure Bank has had over 100 projects. We are talking about over $40 billion. That is real jobs. That is real investment. It is not all government money. However, the Conservatives will try to give the impression that the bank has not done anything and we should get rid of it. At the end of the day, we cannot trust the Conservatives to have credible information often.

Mr. Speaker, I hope to speak to the member's bill a little later this afternoon. I want to ask the member a question regarding the social media component to this. We know, for example, that there is a significant movement to put a limitation on children under 16 such that they cannot have social media accounts. Does the member have an opinion on that particular issue? Obviously, social media accounts often lead to a lot of pornography. I am very curious what her position would be on that.

Mr. Speaker, just over a year ago, Canadians elected a new Prime Minister, along with 70 new members of Parliament. Throughout that campaign and all the way to today, we have seen a Prime Minister and a government that have been focused on building a stronger and healthier Canadian economy, an economy that works for all Canadians. That is one of the reasons we witnessed the largest summit of investors ever commit around $500 billion. That is half a trillion dollars. That is a historic amount of investment coming to Canada because of the Prime Minister and the agenda of the government to support and build a stronger, healthier Canadian economy. This legislation is to help—

Madam Speaker, It is important for us to recognize, as I pointed out yesterday on legislation, that often the government has a much larger agenda, and this is one of those examples. The legislation today is all about how we can actually take advantage of things, such as a half a trillion dollars of committed investments through an economic summit that was led by the Prime Minister of Canada. We want to see foreign investment come into Canada. One of the ways we can attract that is to have legislation of this nature passed through the House. I wonder if my colleague could provide his thoughts with respect to the larger picture.

Madam Speaker, I have a few thoughts I would like to share with the House on the legislation and what it is that the member is actually proposing. With what the previous speaker just mentioned, it is important for us to recognize that the government took action because of a superior court decision that was made in the province of Quebec. Both the member and I have actually been around since the creation of the MAID legislation, so we are very—

Madam Speaker, I think it is really important that we put into perspective why we are where we are today. This is not something for which a political party made the decision. The member who just spoke, as well as the members opposite who were around, back in 2015, like myself, just need to reflect back to that time and what was taking place. For example, the Supreme Court of Canada put it on the political agenda, so there was a need for the House of Commons to respond to it. It was the Carter v. Canada case, which obligated all of us at that time to deal with the issue. The government worked collaboratively and there was a high sense of co-operation on the issue. After all, what could be more personal than having to deal with the issue of medical assistance in dying, and having to make difficult decisions as to when to say no to a medical treatment, or to have a medical treatment that would ultimately lead to the death of an individual? It is very much a personal decision. I think that we need to amplify that. Those personal decisions are best made by the individual working with the experts they have access to, and having those heartfelt discussions with family members and often close friends. I think we often underestimate the important contributions and understanding that health care providers, in particular, and others provide while dealing with the difficult issue of death. For those who are dealing with it on a more frequent basis, if they go to hospice care facilities or personal care facilities, they will often find those health care professionals and others in situations where they have to deal with death on a regular basis. As we all know, it is a part of life. If we then factor in the difficult complications that come to the table with individuals who have a desire to seek MAID, there have been a great deal of arguments brought forward. The decision was made in February or maybe March 2015, but the Supreme Court started hearing about it in 2014. The passion was very real. We got to see some of that passion. If members recall, we had a special committee of the House. I believe it might have even been a joint committee that included members of the Senate. Whether members were on the committee or not, there was a great deal of discussion that took place between committee members and other members of different caucuses. I can recall members inside the chamber delivering speeches on MAID, even talking to some of the individuals who were involved in the lobby rooms. We would often see tears while listening to their personal stories. All one needs to do is to review Hansard during the second reading. Even back then, I spent a lot of my time on the floor of the House here. However, I can say that the committee that studied it after second reading, and even prior to second reading, was deeply engaged. It went on at great length, for hours and hours, with personal stories of witnesses who appeared before it. It was not an easy decision. Sitting back, what I witnessed was some members of the Conservative Party advocating one way and others advocating another way, as it was with the Liberal Party and other entities within the House, because it was based on sharing our free thoughts, having a free vote and so forth. It was difficult, but ultimately a vast majority of members of Parliament voted in favour of Canada's having MAID legislation. That is something that was not done lightly or taken lightly, and I think we need to emphasize that in this debate. It was very thorough, and ultimately, members from all political entities ended up voting in favour of Canada's having MAID legislation. A number of years after that, as I alluded to at the very beginning and as the previous speaker was making reference to, was the issue of mental illness and whether it should or should not be part of MAID. Once again that was put on the table, brought to the House of Commons, because of a decision from a superior court.

Madam Speaker, they can call it what they want. It is still a superior court in Quebec. Moving forward, the issue has been brought to the House, and a decision has been made. There is a sunset clause within the legislation that does need to be addressed. On the issue of mental illness, ever since I have been a parliamentarian, I can remember Dr. Gulzar Cheema, one of my colleagues in the Manitoba legislature, arguing and articulating on why it was so important that we have not only a department of health but also a department of mental health, because we need much more to recognize mental health as part of our health system. There are severe files within mental health that I believe, if this legislation were to pass, would never, ever get any consideration, and I do not believe that would be appropriate. Given the very importance of the issue of mental health, let us have more discussions. I would like more provinces to establish departments of mental health, but at the end of the day, I do not necessarily believe the exclusion is the way to go.

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on what I see as a bit of irony coming from the member opposite. She was part of the Stephen Harper government when it made the decision to increase the number of temporary students coming to Canada. It was hoping to achieve over 300,000. That is a well-documented policy approach by the Conservative Party at the time. The combination of achieving that particular goal and the pandemic played a huge role in where we were a year ago. The Prime Minister made a commitment to stabilize immigration and is doing just that. Does the member see any issue with a newly elected Prime Minister, along with 70-plus newly elected Liberal members of Parliament, doing what he committed to doing in the last election?

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we reflect on exactly what this bill does. It provides a 10¢-a-litre break, extending it until the end of January, and then, once we get to the end of January, it becomes a five-cent-a-litre break until the end of March. It is one of many initiatives the government has taken to support Canadians on the issue of affordability. I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts on why it is important that this is just one of the initiatives, because we could also talk about the Canada grocery benefit program. We could talk about the tax break for 22 million Canadians. Can she just give her perspective on that?

Mr. Speaker, I am going to pick up on the member's comments in regard to the summit. It is truly amazing the degree to which the government has been so successful through the leadership of our Prime Minister at opening the world to Canada. All one needed to do is go to Toronto, where they would have seen economic powerhouses from around the world looking and having control over literally hundreds of billions of dollars. For the first time in Canadian history, we hit close to half a trillion dollars in terms of commitments. The Conservatives can say what they want, but to try to deny the reality that we have a Prime Minister or a government that is working hard to deliver on jobs, investments, trade opportunities is completely off base. I am wondering if she would reflect on her comments with respect to the summit.

Madam Speaker, I think it is important that the leader of the Conservative Party get a bit of a reality check. Under 18 months ago, when the Prime Minister was elected, one of the very first actions he did was to reduce middle-class taxes. Twenty-two million Canadians benefited from it. We can talk about the excise gas tax relief today, of 10¢ a litre. We can talk about how the Prime Minister got rid of the carbon tax. We can also talk about the Canadian grocery benefit. These are some of the direct benefits, not to mention benefits such as the national school food program or the child care enhancements, the dental program and the pharmacare enhancement. Why will the leader not support the entire package we brought forward to deal with the issue of affordability?

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague could provide her thoughts on the degree to which the government, and in particular the government caucus, is focused on the issue of affordability. Today is one example. Through legislation, we would give a very serious extension of a tax break on the excise tax on gas, 10¢ a litre to the end of January and then five cents a litre to the end of March. It is real, tangible and money in Canadians' pockets, but it is part of a bigger affordability agenda. There are tax breaks for 22 million people, and there is support for child care, the dental program and the pharmacare program. There are different ways that we as a government, led by our Prime Minister, are pushing the issue of affordability for Canadians. I would ask the member to provide further comment on that.

Madam Speaker, I have known the member for Surrey Newton for many years, and I have always found him to be a very strong and powerful advocate for issues such as tax breaks. This is one of those issues for which we are going to see a 10¢–a–litre drop ongoing until the end of January, and then five cents a litre until the end of March of next year. I know the member has also been a strong advocate for the tax break for all Canadians, some 20 million people. I wonder if he can provide his thoughts in regard to why it is so important at a time of unaffordability that we be there for Canadians.

Madam Speaker, it has been a fairly good and healthy debate today on an important piece of legislation. The government recognizes the importance of collaboration. We have had collaboration to the degree that we are going to pass this bill today. I want to recognize that in the hope that the Senate of Canada recognizes that the House of Commons has a desire to get this bill passed. Ultimately, it is all about Canadians and providing the type of support they need in dealing with the issue of affordability. I know it would make a huge difference for Canadians, and that is why I am glad to see the Conservative Party join with us in getting the legislation through today. Can the member comment on why it is important that we see the bill ultimately pass, both here and in the Senate?

Madam Speaker, on the idea of having the excise tax taken off gasoline, I find it interesting that a couple of years ago, when the NDP formed government with Wab Kinew, the first initiative was to take the excise tax off gas in the province of Manitoba. Yes, the Conservatives have also talked about it, but so has Canada's new Prime Minister, to the degree that his very first action in dealing with the issue of affordability was to get rid of the carbon tax. In Manitoba, that meant 17¢ a litre, permanently. In the economic spring budget, it was 10¢ a litre, and this legislation would extend that. These are all positive initiatives. I like to think I also had something to do with that tax break by advocating within our caucus, but I think a lot of it had to do with the Prime Minister's determination to deal with the affordability issue. Would the member not agree that maybe we should be sharing the good idea?

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?

Mr. Speaker, that is one of the reasons we have a Prime Minister and a government committed to looking at expanding export opportunities, with 20-plus trade and security deals over the last 18 months. We can talk about the huge investment summit, a half-trillion dollars of infrastructure and so much more coming Canada's way in terms of commitments. These are the types of things that are making a difference, like providing a Red Seal enhancement program that is going to see more Red Seals graduating. These are the types of things that are there to support and grow small businesses. I wonder if we can count on the member opposite's support.

Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed the debate today, and I wanted to express the whole idea behind this. I have said this before. New Democrat Wab Kinew got elected and brought in getting rid of the tax levy on gasoline for the first six months, and I do think he also extended it. It was a great idea. I have been talking about the benefits of getting rid of the gas tax. That is one of the reasons that earlier the Prime Minister got rid of the carbon tax. It was the very first initiative he had. The issue is that it does not matter who comes up with the idea. I am grateful that we are going to be passing Bill C-38, because Canadians would actually benefit. Does the member not agree with that?

Mr. Speaker, the member makes reference to the issue of the senior who makes $20,000 a year. I imagine that senior who is making $20,000 a year on a fixed income being able to receive dental benefits, yet the Conservatives want to take that dental benefit away from them. On the one hand, the member wants to stand up for seniors. On the other hand, he is voting against things that support affordability for seniors. Does that mean there is a new light that has shone over that particular member and he will say to the seniors who make $20,000 a year on a fixed income that he actually supports the dental program that the federal government is providing?

Mr. Speaker, the member has been interesting. What the Government of Canada has done is taken more of a holistic approach in dealing with affordability, because it is not new. It is something the Prime Minister has made a commitment to since the last federal election, and even prior to that. He has been Prime Minister for 18 months, and there have been a number of different measures. We can talk about getting rid of the carbon tax. We can talk about the income tax break for over 20 million Canadians. Today it is the excise tax on gas, which is important legislation. I am glad the Conservatives are going to support it. What about other initiatives that are also helping out with the issue of affordability, such as the dental program, the pharmacare program and the national food program in our schools? Does the member support the whole package?

Mr. Speaker, the member did not answer the aspect of the question dealing with affordability by providing supports. Let me give a specific example about a senior on a fixed income, collecting $20,000 a year. The government has a program for dental services for that particular senior, and that makes the dental services more affordable for the senior. Does the member support that aspect of governance? Does he believe the government has a role in programs of that nature with respect to affordability?

Mr. Speaker, the last question was a bit surprising. The government has dealt with and continues to deal with the issue of affordability. We understand it, and we continue to look at ways we can improve upon it. Today it is Bill C-38, dealing with the excise tax on gasoline. I am glad the Conservatives are supporting it, but we have also brought in a number of different measures, such as a tax break for the middle class, by which 20-plus million Canadians benefited, and a series of programs to address the issue of affordability for seniors who need dental work and for children in schools who need meals. However, the Conservative Party opposes those. Can the member explain to the House, and through the House to his constituents, why the Conservatives do not support those aspects of affordability, feeding children in schools and providing dental services for low-income seniors?

Mr. Speaker, one would ultimately argue, as this is coming from the far right, that there are a number of things the government has done. Bill C-38 is just one example of us giving a very important tax break to deal with affordability. Since the Prime Minister and 70-plus Liberal MPs were elected, there have been a number of policy initiatives, some of which we are waiting for the Conservatives to say they support too, such as the grocery program that puts money into the pockets of Canadians and the national dental care program, not to mention the program to support hundreds of thousands of children in Canada. All of that the Conservative Party is opposed to, yet they say they support affordability measures. Why do they not support all the measures that this government and the Prime Minister have put in place to support Canadians on affordability?

Mr. Speaker, the excise tax on gasoline has been a very high priority for the Prime Minister and the government in recognizing the issue of affordability. It is an important aspect that the government is wanting to pass. I want to extend my gratitude and recognize that we could not be passing it today without the collaboration of all members of the House of Commons. We see that the value is really for Canadians. It is a very important part of what the Prime Minister and the government as a whole have been talking about, so I want to express some appreciation for the collaboration. I think it is important to do so. I would just like to get the member's comments about how we can do some wonderful things if in fact we want to work together to deliver for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could provide his thoughts on what has been a very important issue, that of affordability, and on how the Prime Minister and the government as a whole have taken on the issue, wanting to be able to deliver on it in many different forms. This is a very important step, with Bill C-38 giving that 10¢-a-litre extension in terms of a break. Once we hit the end of January, it goes to 5¢ a litre. It is one part of a much bigger picture of the very important issue of affordability. Could the member provide his thoughts on that?