Finance Committee on Oct. 5th, 2026

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

Then, the International Monetary Fund has a document—

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

They have seen the Canadian measure, Mr. Garon. Unlike you, they said it was one of the measures that should be adopted. I have had discussions with my G20 colleagues, and this is one of the right ways to do things. This is an immediate, targeted measure that affects Canadians. I would say to you that—

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

You know, Minister—

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

—we did well, because it was a time when we needed to help Canadians.

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

I remind you that we are equal when it comes to speaking time.

Minister, we all know that the bill is going to pass, but it's our job as parliamentarians to ask these technical questions.

When an excise tax is suspended, we know that it isn't ultimately 100% of the tax cut that ends up in consumers' pockets after the first few days. That's assumed; we all know that. The question is whether 95%, 90%, 60% or 50% of the cut ends up in consumers' pockets. That's a legitimate question. You say that it's important to be fiscally responsible. That is a legitimate question.

You say that it has been welcomed. In that case, where is the IMF document that has calculated, in the Canadian context, the exact incidence of this tax? Where is the document? Would you like to table it with the committee?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I understand your question. It's a good question. I'll answer you. I find the content of your earlier comment a bit outdated, but that's up to you, as a parliamentarian. What I can tell you—

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

Minister, it's because—

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I'm doing this with respect. I'm treating you with respect. I expect the same respect both ways.

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

Minister, I'm treating you with respect.

However, when you tell us that it's simple math, that at the Department of Finance of a G7 country, when it comes to managing a budget of hundreds of billions of dollars, there's no need to do any calculations, and that everyone can do it at home, what does that say about what you think of the parliamentary committee, Minister?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

No. What I told you is that, if we hadn't suspended the tax, of course, the fuel prices would be 10 cents higher and four cents higher for diesel. That's what I'm telling you.

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

What I'm asking you as a parliamentarian, then—

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

We understand each other there, at least, when it comes to math and economics.

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

What I'm asking you, as a parliamentarian, is to table with the committee the studies from your department that demonstrate what you're saying, because it goes against what is known, theoretically and empirically, about tax analysis in economics. I'm making that request.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Garon. That concludes your speaking time.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Thank you for your request.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

I understand that there is agreement among the members to allow Ms. May a five-minute round.

Ms. May, you have five minutes.

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

Thank you very much to all the members. I very much appreciate this opportunity.

I thank all parties for their generosity.

I'm trying to set up my clock so that I don't go too long, but I'm sure someone will tell me when I have done this wrong. I hate it when I start my clock wrong.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. I have a series of questions about the history around the gas tax. Most of this is so far in the dim background. I think it was certainly before 2015 that Stephen Harper, as former prime minister, made the gas tax, as it was then called, permanent. Then it became the gas tax fund. It was dedicated to urban transit. It was very much welcomed by the municipal order of government, because it created a reliable, predictable source of funding for urban transit.

I'm not trying to put toothpaste back in the tube but to trace what's happened. While I'm certainly on board with anything to help Canadians with the affordability crisis, I'm also wanting to track how this decision will certainly increase the debt and deficit, because it's less money in the federal coffers. I know you have a quick answer to that one, on how much it will increase the deficit for the fiscal year to first bring it in and then to extend it, but I'm also wondering if there is an equally predictable place for municipal orders of government to go for urban public transit dollars.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I have a couple of things on that. First, I want to say thank you. I wish you were at committee every time I appeared.

The fiscal cost of the measure is $5.3 billion. I would say, Madame May, that I think it's the right thing and the fair thing to do. We had increased revenues, as you would assume with the price of oil, which has been higher. There's been volatility. Using part of this to support Canadians at a time of need, knowing where you're coming from and knowing what you've been advocating for, I think is the right thing. You would expect that a government of a G7 country has the fiscal capacity, to use the words of our colleague Mr. Garon, to support Canadians at such a time. To our farmers, our fishers and our people in the logistics sector, this is a way to say that we are there with them.

You'll find in the literature, or at least it's what they say at the meetings I've attended, that countries with the fiscal capacity to do so should be there with support, but—Monsieur Garon is right—in a way that is targeted and time-limited, with very discriminant measures, immediate measures, that can help people. I think the Canadian fashion of doing that has been seen by others as one way to support people at a time of need.

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

To quickly follow up, when I've met with municipal leadership, they're not sure. We hear announcements and press releases that there's money for infrastructure and there's money for public transit, but it's not as clear a road map, I'm told, for a municipal government to access funds for their public transit. We still have a burning need for rural public transit, as was called for by the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls inquiry. We need public transit that's affordable and predictable everywhere in this country, but we don't have it.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

First of all, Madame May, thank you again for your intervention and for bringing your perspective to me and the committee.

I would say that we have done a generational investment. I think what you saw in budget 2025 and in the spring economic update was really Canada charting a different course. I mean, if you look at the infrastructure investment in Canada and compare it with one of the largest, which is Germany, I would even put it to you that it's more than Germany. Germany is $500 billion over 12 years. It's seen as the mother of all infrastructure plans. Canada, on a cash basis, is $425 billion over five years. Some would say that we have the largest infrastructure plan you've seen among our G7 countries.

I would say that we are in a position in which we're making a generational investment. If the question is whether we can do more, we can always do more, and we want to work with such partners as our indigenous partners and municipalities and provinces.

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

Poor indigenous women in B.C. still have to hitchhike. There are no buses. In Germany people don't have to hitchhike between major cities, because their infrastructure is better. We're making investments, but I don't see them in public transit, rural or urban.

I'm probably out of time, but if those are areas that we can look forward to in the next budget.... It's an embarrassment for a wealthy industrialized country not to have ways for people to get from A to B if they're too poor to own their own car.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Ms. May. That concludes your time.

We'll continue now with Ms. Anstey for five minutes.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Thank you. It's great to be here.

Thank you, Minister.

Minister, diesel prices are putting enormous pressure on Canadians, especially in Atlantic Canada, where I'm from; 25% of Atlantic households heat their homes with oil. The national average was $2.63 per litre; that's up 38% in just three months. A week later, it reached $2.74. In my home community, it was $2.77 today.

Your government introduced Bill C-38 to continue the four-cents-per-litre federal excise tax relief on diesel, saying it would help truckers and—if I could use your own words—“farmers” and “fishers” manage higher fuel costs. Your government accepts that removing a federal tax on diesel provides relief when prices are high, yes...?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Yes, it's a good measure to support families, farmers, fishers and truckers.

I'll clarify something: Diesel fuel used in the generation of electricity or heating is not taxed. That is exempt. I just want to clarify that for those watching at home when you talk about heating.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Your government says that Bill C-38 would provide relief on costs it can control. Federal tax policy and the federal rules governing industrial carbon pricing are things your government also controls. If removing the four-cents-per-litre excise tax provides relief, why stop there? Why continue imposing additional government costs on the production of diesel?