Michael Guglielmin

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised to build Canadian and buy Canadian. Now, LNG Canada phase two is a massive private sector investment, but the inputs for the facility portion are not coming from Canada. Canadian steel fabricators say that they have the capacity to supply significant portions of this project, but they were not consulted. Before billions of dollars of fabrication went overseas, did anyone in the Liberal government actually ask Canadian industry stakeholders what they could build here at home?

Mr. Speaker, that was not the question. Canadian steel and pipelines do not answer why Canadian companies were not consulted about the fabrication of the LNG facility itself. It is out of touch to point to steel used somewhere else in the project while ignoring Canadian fabricators who say that they can have a substantial portion of this work completed here in Canada. The Prime Minister talks about “buy Canadian”, but Canadian companies apparently were not even consulted. Therefore, who determined Canadian industry could not complete the work? Was it LNG Canada, the Liberal government or nobody because no one even bothered to ask?

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the great people of the riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge. Canadians are struggling with the cost of living, and every single dollar matters, whether it be the parent filling up the family car before taking the kids to school, the tradesperson driving from job site to job site or the truck driver delivering food that ends up in our grocery stores. It certainly matters to the families in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge who are trying to make their paycheques stretch a little further each month. When I am at the east or west Woodbridge seniors clubs, the topic on everyone's mind is how expensive life has gotten. For seniors, OAS and CPP do not go far enough. As for their grandkids, they feel that life is unaffordable and they will never be able to get ahead. It has been a year and a half since the Liberals were elected, and many are wondering how life has changed, how their lives have been made better. Yes, there are many global challenges that further complicate the problem, including the unjustified tariffs on our country, but many of the affordability concerns that Canadians are talking about predate this, and many of them are self-inflicted after almost 11 years now of bad government policy. There have been many announcements from the government, but we have seen very little progress. We see a government that is great at marketing its announcements but very little action. I would submit that things have actually gotten worse. The Liberals in the last year and a half have doubled the deficit and added hundreds of billions of dollars of new spending above the reckless levels inherited from the previous disastrous Trudeau Liberal government. One need look no further than the fact that we are now at the highest levels of government spending as a share of the economy since 1996 and have the biggest deficit outside of COVID in Canadian history. As a member of His Majesty's loyal opposition, it is my job to hold the government accountable, question its expenditures and, yes, agree where there is room to agree. Just yesterday, when I asked a question in the House on the cost of retaliatory tariffs for Canadians, the government House leader proceeded to act as if such a question was part of a “‘blame Canada’ pattern”. I mean, how dare the Conservative opposition ask a simple question of basic economics to the Liberal government? We know transparency is not the Liberals' strong suit. Following months of Conservative calls to extend gas tax relief for Canadians, the federal government decided to suspend the excise tax on gasoline and diesel in April, providing relief of 10¢ per litre on gasoline and four cents per litre on diesel. This suspension was originally scheduled to expire after Labour Day, but the government has now introduced legislation to extend it to January 2027. For Canadians who depend on their vehicles, and for businesses that depend on affordable transportation, the extension provides additional relief. It also raises an important question about what happens when that relief expires. Conservatives have constantly called for greater relief, and we believe the government should go even further by removing all federal taxes on gasoline and diesel until at least Canada Day 2027, which would save Canadians 25¢ per litre and provide an annual savings of $1,200 per family. I will also note that when Conservatives proposed to remove the federal excise tax on fuel for a longer time, Liberals downplayed it as having little to no impact on affordability for Canadians. I would also like to say that I will be splitting my time with the member for Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière. How much could that wasted time and delay have saved Canadians? Let us think about it. We had a motion in this very House on this exact issue that the Liberals voted against several months prior. We have seen this before. The Liberals backtracked on their previous narrative regarding their tax policy. Exhibit A is the consumer carbon tax. As the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands suggested earlier today, the Liberals are plagiarizing parts of our platform for their own, and it is no surprise that they are because that is exactly what Canadians need to address issues of affordability and the cost of living. Fuel taxes drive up costs for Canadians, and the impact extends well beyond the gas station. When fuel costs rise, the consequences are felt throughout the economy, and ultimately, those costs find their ways into the wallets of every single Canadian. Let us consider what happens before a family even walks into a grocery store. A farmer needs fuel to operate equipment and produce food. A trucking company needs diesel to transport that food. A distributor needs to move it to a warehouse, and another truck delivers it to a grocery store. Every stage involves transportation, and every single stage has costs. When fuel becomes more expensive, businesses face pressure to absorb these costs, reduce spending elsewhere or pass some of those expenditures along to the customers. That is why Conservatives have been calling for the government to go further. Lower fuel costs can help families at the pump while easing some of the pressures facing the businesses that produce and deliver the goods Canadians rely on. As someone who spent 20 years in industry, I understand the importance of getting materials from a supplier to a factory and the finished product from a factory to a customer. The manufacturing transportation costs are part of the price of doing business. It is a top-three line item on most financial statements. A company might be doing everything it can to improve productivity, control expenses and remain competitive, but it still needs to purchase fuel to move its products. When those costs rise, it can put additional pressure on the company's margins and ability to compete. This is particularly relevant today when Canadian manufacturers are already navigating significant uncertainty in their trade relationship with the largest market, the United States. For businesses in Vaughan—Woodbridge and across Ontario, transportation costs are one of several factors that determine whether they can offer competitive prices, attract orders and maintain employment. Fuel tax relief can help with one of those pressures. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has also reported significant financial pressure among small businesses. Among those who considered it a bad time to start a business, 88% cited high costs, 65% pointed at taxes and 53% identified government red tape. These are Canadians who invest their savings, take risks and employ people in our communities. When their costs rise, it can become harder to expand, invest in new equipment, hire workers or offer competitive pricing. Conservatives also called for reforms to federal permitting, taxation and regulation to address Canada's broader competitive challenges. For example, we have learned that there are over 100,000 different regulations on the manufacturing sector alone. The decisions Parliament makes on fuel taxes are a part of that discussion. I want to turn to the experience of younger Canadians. The finance minister claimed his government is fighting every day for young people and their generation, yet a recent RBC report highlights that more than half of Canadian parents are financially supporting their adult children, giving an average of $6,100 just last year. Young Canadians should not need the bank of mom and dad to afford groceries and rent. A significant portion of Canada's brain drain is because of the cost of living for our young people. Conservatives have raised concerns about the scale of federal spending, the deficit and the long-term costs of servicing public debt. Those concerns deserve careful consideration when the government is asking Canadians to accept that further fuel tax relief cannot be sustained beyond next spring. Bill C-38 also presents an opportunity to consider the broader fuel tax proposal. Conservatives have called for removing all federal taxes on gasoline and diesel until at least Canada Day 2027, including the GST on fuel, while also proposing changes to the clean fuel regulations and the permanent elimination of the industrial carbon tax. The government has estimated that extending the existing tax suspension will provide an additional $2.9 billion in tax relief. That makes the scheduled return of the tax particularly important to examine. If the government recognizes that fuel tax relief can help Canadians and Canadian businesses manage rising costs, Parliament should understand why the relief is scheduled to end on April 1. The families I represent in Vaughan—Woodbridge are looking for greater financial security. They want to know that their children have opportunities to purchase a home, that their businesses can remain competitive and that their paycheques will cover the costs of everyday life.

Madam Speaker, we are facing a major affordability crisis, and in that same spirit of collaboration, we would like to see the government extend this fuel tax break even further. We would also like to see it take some of our other ideas on affordability. We have a serious problem with regulations that have a stranglehold on the Canadian economy. We need serious tax reform. I believe it was a Liberal prime minister, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who once said that if Canada wants to be competitive with the United States, the largest market, it is not going to be a market competition. We have to have a more competitive regulatory system and a much more competitive tax system. I would like to see the Liberals collaborate with us on those things to increase affordability for Canadians.

Madam Speaker, we see a theme here. The Liberal government spends 11 years recklessly destroying the Canadian economy and then wants to take credit for programs that it institutes to apparently help subsidize the people in the economy that it destroyed. To answer the member's question, we need to see the spirit of collaboration on serious things like tax reform, on things that will help us build up our leverage in trade negotiations and that will help promote competitiveness. We would like to see the Liberals actually start building energy infrastructure so we can take advantage of this unique opportunity to capitalize on our natural resources, so we can lower business and personal tax for people and really target key industries and see them thrive. We have everything we need in this country. We just need the Liberals onside to promote these ideas.