Finance Committee on June 8th, 2026

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Chair, I haven't read the subamendment. It's impossible for you to rule on something that doesn't exist.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Can you get to the point then, please?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Yes. I will read it right now.

I move that the amendment be amended by adding after proposed paragraph (c), paragraph (d), which adds after line 16 on page 7, the following: “1(1) for the period beginning on April 20, 2026, and ending on September 7, 2026, no primary suppliers defined in subsection 1(1) of the clean fuel regulations is required to satisfy a compliance obligation under those regulations in respect of gasoline, diesel fuel, unleaded aviation gasoline, leaded aviation gasoline, or aviation fuel” and “1(2) For greater certainty, subsection (1)(1) applies only in respect of fuel referred in that subsection, and only for the period during which the rate of tax in respect of that fuel is deemed to be zero under this section.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Lawrence. That's still inadmissible because it's with regard to a tax that is not currently in that amendment. Thank you very much.

Mr. Hallan.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

I'm going to give this a shot one more time.

I'm going to try to move another subamendment to cross the dates off in proposed section 9.2 and try to add the dates in both proposed paragraph (a) and proposed paragraph (b) to read as, “after April 19, 2026 until December 31, 2026.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Mr. Hallan, that's inadmissible. The committee has already ruled on that. We've already gone over that.

Mr. Lawrence.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Thank you.

With respect, I believe we're back on the amendment, if that's correct, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

We're back on the original G-1 amendment.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Thank you. We're in agreement.

I was wondering if we have officials from Environment Canada who can briefly outline if there are any greater emissions or a greater carbon footprint from leaded aviation gasoline as opposed to the other fuels that are included.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Are there any officials in the room who can address that?

Please come to the table. Thank you.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

I have two questions for you. First, is there any greater environmental damage created by leaded aviation gasoline emissions?

Second, is the amount of carbon created by the burning of leaded aviation gasoline equivalent to, lesser than or greater than the amount created by gasoline or diesel fuel?

[Gervais Coulombe, Director General, Legislation, Sales Tax Division, Department of Finance]

Thank you for the question, Madam Chair.

My name is Gervais Coulombe, and I am the director general in charge of excise tax legislation.

First, I want to make clear that I work for the Department of Finance, not Environment and Climate Change Canada.

Generally speaking, we know that leaded aviation gasoline is the only type of aviation fuel currently available in Canada. Its uses are extremely limited. It is used in a few cases in very remote areas for certain agricultural needs. It's used to fuel very small piston-engined aircraft.

Unleaded aviation gasoline doesn't seem to be available in Canada right now. You asked whether it creates greater environmental damage, and the short answer is that it's the only type of gasoline piston engines use.

The second part of your question was about the greenhouse gas emissions, and as far as I know, any difference there might be is quite minimal. The combustion of lead doesn't contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. However, that isn't a definitive answer, since we haven't studied or analyzed that.

Generally speaking, though, I don't think the difference in greenhouse gas emissions would be significant. In terms of a constructive response, that's the best I can give you right now.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Thank you very much for that.

I am a bit disappointed that we don't have anyone from Environment Canada here to tell us about the environmental impact of lead, but I think you did the best you could. I really do appreciate that. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Shall G-1 carry?

(Amendment agreed to on division)

Staying on clause 11, we go to CPC-6.

Mr. Hallan, you have the floor.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

I move that Bill C-30, in clause 11, be amended by adding after line 16 on page 7 the following:

(3) Within 30 days after September 7, 2026, the Minister of National Revenue, in collaboration with the Minister of Finance, must prepare a report on the application of this section and cause the report to be tabled in each House of Parliament on any of the first 15 days on which that House is sitting after the report is completed.

(4) The report must

(a) set out the impact of the application of this section, including on fuel prices, transportation costs, food prices, household expenses and inflation;

(b) include an assessment of the costs and benefits of extending the application of this section beyond September 7, 2026; and

(c) include an estimate of the fiscal impact of the application of this section.

(5) The Minister of National Revenue and the Minister of Finance must publish the report on the website of the Department of National Revenue and of the Department of Finance, respectively, within 10 days after the day on which the report is tabled in both Houses of Parliament.

Once again, there's a big difference between what the Conservatives are calling for, which would be more relief for Canadian families, a total of $1,200, compared to what the Liberals are offering, which is not very much. It's a third of the tax they're taking off for a third of the year, which totals about $100-something of savings altogether.

This would help in many ways. First, if this were to continue, if the war continues and gas prices stay high, we would have a clear indication after summer what that savings looks like for families, because we know that there may or may not be more usage in the summer. A lot of families are struggling. A lot of families are holding back on taking any trips, going on vacation or even going on road trips because of the price of gas. What we're essentially asking for is some more clarity and transparency on what it would look like if we had to extend this even further.

As I said before when I was trying to pass my subamendment, the savings Canadians would receive would be less of a burden on the budget of Canada's finances than the current taxes that are collected altogether because of the clean fuel standard, which adds a lot of costs and takes a lot of money out of Canadians' pockets, and which, again, has no environmental value whatsoever and is doing nothing but making Canadians poorer. That's clear to see. It's increasing the cost of food and fuel, and that's making a huge impact. Now we're hearing stories about food banks that are running out of food. They're not able to replenish the food because they're running out of money to replenish the food that is being taken out of their food banks in record amounts, and there are record lineups at those food banks.

We know from the last subamendment we tried to pass that Liberals are not in favour of giving Canadians more of a break, whether that's to their wallets or to help reduce the cost of food and fuel. This is a chance to give a clear indication that we will continue to remove the tax until global conditions get better. This is something that's in our hands. Whatever we can control in Canada, we should. This would help set some guidelines, or it would set some targets if we ever need to continue to take the tax off fuel in the future.

I hope we can bring that clarity and transparency to Canadians.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Hallan.

Go ahead, Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

There was a whole of string of assertions Mr. Hallan made in that intervention that I disagree with, but I'll just focus on the arguments as to why the government obviously supported the amendment. We put it forward, so it's no surprise.

In terms of the transparency that the member opposite suggests he's looking for, the fuel excise tax suspension is estimated to have a fiscal impact of $2.41 billion in 2026-27. That's in the spring economic update. It's very transparent and out there already for members to assess. It certainly is not.... The measure of extending this for numerous other months in the year was already decided on by the committee. Mr. Hallan said he was looking to assess the extension of this, but we already decided against that with the last vote on his subamendment. However, the fiscal impact is very clear: $2.41 billion in this fiscal year.

Also, just in terms of the other indicators that are identified, there's a range of domestic and international factors beyond the temporary fuel excise tax relief, and it would be challenging, or at least we feel it would be challenging, to isolate the effects of the fuel excise tax relief from some of those indicators, especially given data limitations in the time frame contemplated by this. I've also mentioned previously that the Parliamentary Budget Officer is at parliamentarians' disposal to provide independent, non-partisan financial and economic analysis when needed, so you could certainly make a request if greater in-depth analysis were desired or warranted.

That's all I have to say about this. Thanks, Madam Chair. Hopefully, we can get to a vote soon.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you.

Mr. Kelly, go ahead.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

I was listening to Mr. Turnbull. He did point out—and it's true—that we just voted down an extension of the excise relief, plus other measures. However, is he now saying it's the government's position to absolutely shut the door on such an extension? The argument made by the government is that these prices are volatile and we don't know how long these prolonged high world crude prices will persist. That was quite some time ago now, Madam Chair. We're moving into the middle of June now with exceptionally high world crude prices, and I would hope the door might be open for extended tax relief. Having the information and having information reported within 30 days—which would be September 7—would be helpful to that end.

Again, I know that they make the argument that the information should be available somewhere else or could be made available. He mentioned the ability of opposition members to get the Parliamentary Budget Officer to study these matters. However, I think the point here is that in proposed paragraph (4)(a), we're saying that the report must:

(a) set out the impact of the application of this section, including on fuel prices, transportation costs, food prices, household expenses and inflation;

The government's position has been that carbon taxes or taxes on fuel don't affect the price of food and are not inflationary. These are arguments that they have made repeatedly in the House of Commons. They have said that it was fake when Conservatives asserted that carbon taxes inflate or raise the price of food, so we would like to see this reporting.

Asking the Parliamentary Budget Officer to do special reports on these types of items is something I hoped we wouldn't have to do. However, even if we do, the Parliamentary Budget Officer and her office have, in some cases, struggled to get the information from the government. We've heard refusals to supplying information. I can think of a particular case, which was litigated at the government operations committee, in which the Parliamentary Budget Officer was not getting the information needed to complete the work.

I'd like to see this bill amended so that we do get the information that policy-makers should have at their fingertips and that Canadians would like to see. I support this amendment, notwithstanding the arguments that have been made in opposition to it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Kelly.

Mr. Viersen is next.

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

I'd like to add my voice to this as well.

To Mr. Turnbull about the $2.4 billion, that's a projected number. There's a whole bunch of variables that are at play, and I would like to see the government have to own that number for themselves. Coming in the fall, they should say, “Okay, here's what we did, and here's the result that it had.” Perhaps people travel less than anticipated. That would have less of a savings than the $2.4 billion. Perhaps the fuel price goes to a different place so that the estimated price is not the same.

The other thing Mr. Turnbull brought up when we were debating the extension of the tax relief past September 8, and which I would point out is in our amendment in (b), is that it would “include the assessment of the costs and benefits of extending the application” past that. I know that the government has talked about possibly doing that, and we would say that in this report we would be asking for—as they have done with the $2.4 billion in this—if they moved it forward, what kind of impact it would have. I think that's clear in this motion, and I hope the Liberals support it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Viersen.

Mr. Lawrence is next.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Thank you.

Some of the comments were eloquently discussed by my colleagues. I'll shorten mine accordingly.

The challenge I have—and I mean this sincerely—is that it's a bit troubling to me that a government, instead of producing their own documents or their own disclosure, is saying, “You can just go to the PBO.” The PBO is there to review the government's numbers and then assess them independently, but the government has to give you those numbers first. The PBO should never be a substitute for a government being transparent. That's just a fallacy of logic and is, on its face, incorrect.

My colleague is exactly right as well. There is a big difference between a projection and what has actually happened. As my colleague said, there can be reasonable explanations for why a projection would be different from an estimation. If you made a projection in 2019 and then COVID happened, your projection would be way off. That's not because the government has done anything wrong. It's just that we had a once-in-a-generation pandemic. We would like to see the actual numbers in addition to the projection. In fact, comparing the projection to the actual numbers is of value.

I was wondering if Mr. Marsh could return. I have some questions with respect to that $2.41 billion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Certainly.

Mr. Marsh, could you join us at the table please? Is there no...?

Did you want to ask another witness?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Whoever is capable....