Debates of Oct. 6th, 2026

Opposition Motion—Diesel Prices

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, our position is that we should permanently get rid of the industrial carbon tax, which applies to the upstream production of petroleum and the refining of diesel products. We should permanently get rid of the so-called clean fuel standard, which is a tax that drives up gas at the pump by at least six cents a litre, rising to 17¢ a litre. It should be gone forever. We propose to suspend until at least Canada Day the excise tax and the GST.

The combined effect of that will be in the neighbourhood of 20¢ a litre, and that would reduce the costs for our truckers who bring us products, our farmers, our rural people who drive diesel-powered vehicles and people in Atlantic Canada and parts of Ontario who still heat with diesel. Everything is more expensive when we drive up the cost of diesel.

I noticed that the member forgot to mention that Canadian diesel prices are 24¢ to 30¢ a litre more expensive than American and worldwide prices. That is a homemade problem, made by the government, for which the Conservatives have the solution. We ask them to vote for our plan for diesel price relief for all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure for me, as the leader of the Green Party of Canada, to be able to put a question to the leader of the official opposition. It is rare that we have this chance leader to leader.

I wonder if the member would like to comment on the fact that so many billions of dollars of subsidies are going to projects that are primarily based in the United States. For instance, we hear a lot about Ksi Lisims' LNG project that will be a floating LNG terminal. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Western LNG, which is, of course, Texas-owned and -based. The so-called LNG Canada operation is 40% Shell oil. Other than Shell, the next owners are Petronas from Malaysia, PetroChina and Korea's state-owned gas company.

There is nothing Canadian about it, except the name. Does this bother the leader of the official opposition?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question was about subsidies. Canada's oil and gas industry should be so wildly profitable that it does not need any subsidies. In fact, LNG Canada, the first project, which was approved by the previous Conservative government, did not require subsidies, even though it is the single biggest project in the history of the country at $40 billion. Why? It is because it is wildly profitable to take natural gas, which goes for $2.50 in Canada, and sell it for $25, 10 times more, in Asia.

Why do we need subsidies now? It is because the Liberal government blocks these projects, ties them up in red tape, taxes them to a level that is too high, breaks our legs and then says we should thank them for giving us a crutch.

In reality, we believe we should get out of the way and off the backs of our energy sector so that these projects are profitable, pay into the treasury, rather than take out, employ people and make us richer, make life more affordable and make us more autonomous here at home.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, the Leader of the Opposition implied that a Conservative government in Ottawa would dampen Quebec's drive for independence. This raises several questions for me. Let us look at the facts rather than his speech: Yesterday, Quebeckers elected a Parti Québécois government, which obviously advocates for Quebec's independence. Under Conservative leadership, from 2012 to 2014, a Parti Québécois government was also elected, one that advocated for Quebec's independence. For the benefit of my Conservative colleague, I would like to add that the Bloc Québécois has never disappeared. The Bloc Québécois is still here. There have always been people fighting for Quebec to stand on its own two feet.

My question is this: Can he not acknowledge that it is a legitimate aspiration for a nation to have its own country?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, after 10 years of Conservative government, the Bloc Québécois did not even have official party status in the House of Commons. In Quebec, the Parti Québécois was in opposition. At that time, discussions about a referendum were not even happening, because the Conservative Party had managed to unite the country, as it always does. It had recognized the Quebec nation, restored to the provinces the powers that rightfully belonged to them, including the Quebec nation, and respected all Canadians. Young people also had the hope that they could buy a home, start a family and build a good life. In a climate of hope like that, the situation we face today did not exist.

Unfortunately, we are now faced with two referendum initiatives: one that is very real and another that is being threatened. Now more than ever, we need a prime minister who can unite Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to address the House in regard to the opposition motion before us today. It is a motion that I personally cannot support. At the end of the day, I believe the government's policy is the right direction we should be following.

There are a number of things the Conservative Party does not take into consideration. The primary one has to be the reality of what is happening around the world today. What is taking place in the Strait of Hormuz and in the Middle East is having a profound impact on prices not only here in Canada, but in fact around the world.

I posed a question to the leader of the Conservative Party, and then another question was posed to him, and from my perspective, two things came out of them. The latter question posed to him was about the issue of taxes. He raised the United States and the rest of the world, saying that Canada was above the average. It is important that we get a sense of what is actually taking place in the G7 countries, which are the most industrialized countries in the world today. Our price on diesel fuel is no higher than it is in many of the other G7 countries, which includes countries such as the United Kingdom, which has England, and others.

Being very selective is something the Conservatives are very good at doing when trying to draw comparisons. Canada overall is, relatively speaking, in a very okay position compared to G7 countries on the price of diesel. Can we do more? That is ultimately one of the reasons we have taken the actions we have since the spring economic update. That was one of the issues coming out of the questions for the leader of the Conservative Party.

Another issue, the one I specifically asked the leader about, was in regard to the Conservatives' position on taxation with respect to fuel. I suspect their position is even further to the right than President Trump's, quite frankly. If we listen to what some of the Conservatives are saying, whether today or in the week prior to the break week, one could easily draw the conclusion that they believe, or at least some believe, or want to imply that we should be getting rid of all forms of gas taxes. Then they go on to give a number of reasons, which ultimately lead to farmers.

That is where I would like to begin my comments, although somewhat belated. Conservatives like to talk a great deal about farmers, as if the Government of Canada has not been sympathetic to the farmers of our nation. Nothing could be further from the truth. I would challenge members across the way to indicate a prime minister who has been as aggressive, along with cabinet, in trying to pursue additional markets that go beyond the United States. I do not believe they would be able to identify a prime minister, cabinet or government caucus that has been as aggressive in pursuing export markets that ultimately will support our farmers.

Let me give a good example of that. I had the opportunity to get a better understanding of what is taking place in the Philippines, because of the trade discussions happening today with Canada and the Philippines, which are led by the Prime Minister and the President of the Philippines.

Agriculture is on the agenda, and that is only one of many discussions that have been taking place over the last 18 months. In fact, we have seen well over 20 trade and security agreements signed off on by the Prime Minister and this government since the last federal election.

I will go to one agreement that I tie myself fairly closely to, because the Minister of International Trade has been very accommodating in listening to what I have to say about the potential between Canada and the Philippines. I am encouraged by how agriculture is being brought into the picture. I am someone who grew up in the Prairies and lived in all three prairie provinces, and I have been talking to farmers. The first farm I visited when I was 13 years old was the Stoynes farm just outside of Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan. I rode on the big tractors at 13. I understand the farming community in good part, although maybe not as well as others who are farmers and so forth, but understanding the industries has always been important to me, whether it is the canola or pork industry, which I have provided comments on in the past.

I can say that the government, in particular our Minister of Agriculture, is very much on top of the file in regard to farmers, as is the Prime Minister, who also grew up in the Prairies. I suspect that if we were to have discussions with farmers, what we would find at the end of the day is that creating additional markets for their product is something they see great value in. Tell me another government that has been as aggressive at pursuing that.

Another good example would be canola. My home province of Manitoba benefited because the Prime Minister took an interest in trying to take down barriers between China and Canada, which ultimately dealt with some tariffs on canola.

We can talk about Farm Credit Canada and how it continues to support our farmers during what can be very challenging times. The special levy tax put on by the federal government was actually put into place by the current Prime Minister. The Conservatives like to say that it was their idea. Ultimately, the idea might have come from Wab Kinew, the Premier of Manitoba, who years ago gave a gasoline tax break to the people of Manitoba shortly after the last provincial election.

The point is that it does not matter where the idea came from. What is important is that we recognize that there is a need today to deal with issues such as affordability. This is something the Prime Minister, this government and every member of the Liberal caucus understand. It is a reflection of what we are seeing and hearing within our ridings. We want to deliver for the constituents we represent, and the affordability issue is an important issue for every one of us. We are a strong, united caucus on the issue of affordability and in supporting the initiative that the Prime Minister has taken in providing direct relief through the levy on taxes on gasoline.

That is not the first time. In fact, the very first action that was taken when he was selected as the leader of the Liberal Party and became the Prime Minister was getting rid of the carbon tax on gasoline. Was that 13¢ a litre or 17¢ a litre? I cannot think of the exact number. I think it was close to 17¢ a litre.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Whose idea was it?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it was our current Prime Minister who actually got rid of it.

The member opposite wants to challenge me and ask whose idea it was. Let me tell him something. At one time, the Conservatives were against it. They then became in favour of it and then they were against it. That is the Conservatives' track record on it.

The current Liberal leader, today's Prime Minister, who was elected in the last federal election, made a commitment to Canadians on the issue of affordability and he is delivering on the issue of affordability in many different ways. He is not just dealing with the tax on gas, whether it is the carbon tax or the levy that has been applied.

We constantly hear from members opposite, and even from my colleagues, about the importance of affordability. It has not stopped there. When we talk about affordability, this is affordability that benefits farmers. The tax break that was given, shifting from 15% to 14%, helped 22 million Canadians. To my Conservative friends, many of those people are farmers.

Understanding that there are ways in which we can directly help Canadians with the price of food, we not only converted the GST rebate but, significantly, put up front literally hundreds of millions of dollars and converted it into the Canada groceries and essentials benefit. Again, we are dealing with the issue of affordability. Once again, our farmers will benefit from that program.

I put it in that form because I want members to recognize that one does not have to be in the opposition to value and appreciate what our farmers do for our nation. They are the ones who provide the food on our table.

I have travelled on the highway in the Prairies, where we see four, five and more combines forming a row and harvesting wheat from the fields. It is an impressive sight. In the province of Manitoba, when I think of farmers and producers, it goes beyond just the crops. I have talked about how important the pork industry is to my home province of Manitoba, from those who process it to those who have the barns and get the pork ready to be put in places like HyLife, Maple Leaf Foods and Winkler Meats. These are important people who play a critical role in food security.

Food security is important to every member of the government caucus. For this reason, we often talk about why it is so important to support expanding the year-round production of things like vegetables and fruits so that we are less dependent on countries like the United States in dealing with food security. These are some of the measures the government has put in place to support our farmers and Canadians as a whole.

Today, we have the Conservatives saying, “Here is our idea”, because they want to one-up, in the best way they can, what the current government is proposing, even though when they had a chance to do things like this when they were in government, they did not. Now they are in opposition and they see a government actually taking some of these initiatives, they want to say they can one-up them.

No one can accurately predict what the price of fuel is going to be six months from now. We might like to think we can. This is a measure that was put in place on April 20, I believe, as part of the spring budget update. It was meant to provide temporary support, with a suspension until the Labour Day weekend. That was in Bill C-30, if members want to look it up. We are grateful that the Conservatives supported that legislation. That was great.

Over the summer, going into August, a decision was made that we needed to be able to extend that tax break, which is somewhat similar to what the Province of Manitoba did when it brought in its initial price reduction on gasoline. That is exactly what Bill C-38 would do. It would allow for that extension, which incorporates diesel and gasoline. I can say it makes a very tangible difference for consumers.

I am very much aware of the Bloc's concern with respect to the issue. How can we ensure that the tax break, whether it is given by the Province of Manitoba or the federal government, is being passed on to consumers? I believe we have some of the best civil servants and independent officers of Parliament, along with different stakeholders, who can ensure that those oil companies have a sense of accountability so that, in fact, that tax break goes directly into the pockets of the consumer. That is something we take very seriously. It is the reason why we are doing it in the first place.

This is a government that is not only focused on short-term relief. It is trying to resolve the problem and secure our future so that Canada can be more independent in issues of this nature. It is the reason why we had the Pacific link announcement. It is the reason why we had the LNG Canada phase two announcement. These are multi-billion-dollar announcements that are going to increase Canada's capacity.

The leader of the Green Party talked about refineries. If we want more refineries in Canada, we have to continue to do what the government is doing, which is working collaboratively with other jurisdictions. We have to create the climate that will allow for the expansion of our refineries. I think we have 16 now. Maybe it is 17. I am not 100% sure. I know Manitoba is one of the only provinces that does not have one. I would like to see private businesses, private enterprises and the provincial governments, in particular, working with the federal government on ways we can do that. This government, headed by this Prime Minister, has made it very clear that we are a government that will work collaboratively with other jurisdictions, the private sector and, in particular, investors to build a stronger and healthier Canada for all and an economy that is there for all Canadians. That is what we are all about.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to challenge my colleague's comments about the benefits the Liberal government has brought forward, particularly for Canadians but certainly for Canadian farmers. It is much like the Liberals' fabled buy Canada policies when, in fact, they are buying American.

It is very similar to the Liberals' fuel regulations. My colleague said this benefits Canadian farmers, but 73% of the carbon credits from the fuel regulations standards are going to imported fuel. This means that almost a billion dollars in credits from the Liberals' fuel regulations are going to subsidize foreign imports into Canada, mainly from the United States.

Would my colleague not agree that high taxes, red tape and a multitude of bureaucratic hoops for these processors and farmers to jump through are the reasons why the Liberals' fuel regulations are not benefiting Canadian producers, and that there is a better solution?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, no. I disagree with the member, because all we need to do is look at what has been taking place in the last 18 months. In the last 18 months, we have seen investors from around the world looking at Canada as the right place to invest in. They can look at what took place in the city of Toronto when the Prime Minister hosted the world's investors and generated the possibility of just under half a trillion dollars' worth of potential investment.

It is unheard of in Canada for a prime minister to do what he has been able to accomplish, especially in the time frame of 18 months. That is the reality, so I disagree wholeheartedly with what the member is suggesting.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I welcome members having exchanges, but there is only one member recognized at a time. I remind the member for Foothills to hold himself back for a moment.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong.

[Marilyn Gladu, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader for his passion for Canadian farmers and Canadian agriculture, and then I want to add to that.

He has reiterated that our government is clearly willing to bring affordability measures to help Canadians at this crisis time. Twice, we have exempted the fuel tax, with Bill C-30 and Bill C-38. However, let us not forget that some of those fuel taxes actually go back to municipalities to help with critical infrastructure.

We cannot predict what the situation is going to be in the Strait of Hormuz and whether that is going to be resolved soon. It would be irresponsible to extend past the time frame that we can predict, what the revenues would be and what the benefits for Canadians would be. Would the member agree?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I would agree. That is one of the reasons why I brought up how there is no one inside the House of Commons who can make a prediction about what the price is going to be in six, seven or eight months with any absolute certainty. That is because of what is taking place in the Strait of Hormuz and in the Middle East in general.

The manner in which we are bringing forward the excise tax relief on gasoline is the most appropriate way. It is the responsible way to plan for the budget going into the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I did not expect to be speaking to the issue of pork in Manitoba, but I cannot help myself in responding to the hon. parliamentary secretary. The history there is fascinating. We should learn the lessons.

It was Pierre Trudeau who killed the Crow rate, which made it harder for prairie farmers to ship out their grain. That led to a glut of grain on the Prairies, which meant asking, “What do we do with all of this grain?” They put it in mega hog barns, with thousands of sows in the same barn, and fed them the grain, because if they could not ship the grain out, they could ship the hogs out.

Where did they go? They are not local food security for Manitoba. Only 10% are consumed in Canada. Most are shipped out. Millions of live pigs are shipped to the United States, bringing us back to the same argument we are making here. They are not processed in Canada. Live pigs are sent to Iowa, where they are fattened up, fed lots of drugs and slaughtered. Meanwhile, the hog barns have so contaminated Lake Winnipeg that it is dying.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely, totally disagree with the leader of the Green Party. She should be talking to people in the Manitoba pork industry and get a better sense of where it is today.

I have been on this file since the nineties, when we had the hog barn issue. The reason we have two million piglets going to the United States is that we do not have enough barns in the prairie provinces, particularly in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. There is a movement afoot to expand the number of farming facilities.

The member undercut such an important industry. We are talking about 10,000 direct jobs in the province of Manitoba because of the pork industry. That is not to mention indirect jobs. If they go out to Brandon and Neepawa, not to mention Winnipeg, they will see the impact the pork industry is having. It is very real and very tangible.

I suspect that there are thousands of people, including the premier of the province, who would be upset with the leader of the Green Party's comments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to reflect on what the member said. That is the situation today. I am looking at how this evolved, and I recall how many municipalities, local governments, across Manitoba passed bylaws to stop having mega barns put in their communities, making life less livable and hurting local farmers. They were stopped by a draconian law from former NDP premier Gary Doer, who took away the right of local municipalities to ban these productions in their communities.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in a positive way, we should note that things have changed through technology and so forth. It is an industry that is doing exceptionally well today in the province of Manitoba.

True to form, when the member spoke, she talked about how we should be processing more within Canada, something I support. I hope to see this not only in our hog industry, but also in our petroleum industry.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member is from the Prairies, and so am I. He knows that the backbone of the prairie economy is the family farm.

Family farms tend to be a little smaller than the bigger commercial farms out there, but small family farms are probably being hit the hardest when it comes to skyrocketing diesel prices, because the margins they are operating with are very tight. One farmer talked to me about the price from last year and what he is planning for for next year, and he said he is looking at a difference of between $40,000 and $50,000 on his small family farm just in the cost of diesel for him to put the crop in the ground and get the harvest off. He has to plan ahead, and he is penciling in a difference from last year to next year of $50,000.

What does the member think this farmer is going to do? He cannot pass that cost on. He has to absorb that cost. That is why we have this motion today. What does the member have to say about that?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is the short term and there is the long term. In the short term, the government is providing tax relief. In the long term, it is important to recognize that, whether it is through the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of International Trade or the other ministers, we are aggressively looking for new markets for our farmers.

I suspect that in the long run, the healthiest thing we can do for our farmers is to support them by finding and supporting new markets that go beyond the United States. At some point, we will re-establish well in the United States, but we need to expand the export market, and that is something this government is aggressively pursuing. I suspect that our farmers in the Prairies will very much appreciate that fact.

[Braedon Clark, Liberal, Sackville—Bedford—Preston, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to touch on something the member just mentioned, which is the balance between short-term and long-term factors. Perhaps he could touch on some of the short-term moves the government has taken, like the removal of the fuel excise tax, and the longer-term projects on affordability, like Churchill Falls or other projects that he might want to mention.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. I had a lot of time to talk about the short term. Let me go into the long term.

As the member would know, we have the Major Projects Office. Out of the Major Projects Office, 24-plus submissions have been brought in. We are talking about close to half a trillion dollars. In every region of Canada, whether it is for copper mines, at the port of Montreal or in Atlantic Canada, we are seeing a high level of interest where there are major projects in the works, and it is all because of collaborative federalism headed by the Prime Minister.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, before I get started, I would like to say that I am sharing my time with the member for Lethbridge.

We are here talking about a motion regarding diesel prices, which are basically out of control. They are getting higher, with the potential to go even higher, and our Conservative motion is to cut diesel taxes to save Canadians money and produce more fuel here at home.

We have already seen how a weakened economy over the last 10 years has made us vulnerable to tariffs, and this is going to get worse with a diesel shortage. No matter where the dispute is happening, this diesel shortage is coming, and it is going to affect Canadians in more ways than one. The Prime Minister blamed the provinces for taxes, but the Prime Minister forgot to mention his own taxes on fuel, which include the industrial carbon tax, the clean fuel regulations on diesel and the GST on diesel.

I have seen this before. I was in MLA in B.C. when the Coquihalla Highway was washed out, and in turn the pipeline that was sending fuel products from Alberta to B.C. was shut down. That turned to rationing for people living in Vancouver and on Vancouver Island of 30 litres per fill-up. It was that bad, and in fact, the public safety minister at the time, Farnworth, said that it could work if people were not greedy and would not take any more. There were even travel restrictions. It got so bad that our neighbours to the south helped us out on request by shipping more fuel to Vancouver, and Alberta was doing everything it could to turn the taps back on again. This is where we are heading if we do not take this issue seriously.

When we are talking about rationing fuel at a government level, a citizen is at the bottom of the list of those using fuel. The priority will be emergency service vehicles, as it was in B.C., public transit vehicles and commercial transport trucks, which are relevant here, because the cost of groceries depends on the transport of food products to the grocery stores. That is not to mention the farmers who need diesel for the harvest. None of these producers or transporters are going to absorb that cost. They are going to pass it on to the consumer, who is already struggling.

Two million people are visiting food banks in Canada. The price of groceries and goods is going to go up if we do not address this in the short term, the medium term and the long term.

The priority goes further, to road repair, military vehicles, critical infrastructure, home care workers and municipal service vehicles. If someone lives in a northern community like mine, municipal service vehicles matter when they want to pick up garbage or want to clear the roads and the highways of snow. Fire trucks, ambulances and B.C. first nations government service vehicles will be a priority. They were a priority during the fuel crunch back in 2022 in B.C.

B.C. ferries, coast guards, tugboats, emergency vehicles, pilot boats, Canada Post, vehicles for the provision of critical government services and airport authority vehicles were all priorities at the top of the list in B.C. when we faced a fuel shortage, as were school buses, taxis, agriculture and farm-use vehicles, veterinarians supporting flood response, and intercity buses. That was a very temporary shortage of fuel that B.C. was experiencing.

However, it went further. There were travel restrictions in B.C. The travel restrictions for British Columbians applied to Highway 99, Highway 3 and Highway 7, and they were enforced by the RCMP. Only approved travel was allowed. If a citizen wanted to travel to visit their family members, under the fuel crisis it was not allowed, and they could be charged. They could be charged and fined if they did not follow the fuel restrictions. There were essentials as well, including a person returning to a principal residence or an aboriginal exercising their rights as affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982.

This is serious. Nobody is blaming the Liberal government for the wars or the issues happening all around the world that are causing diesel shortages globally. No one is blaming the government. We are talking about what is possible, right here and right now, to help offset the price at the pump for Canadians and help with affordability. That is all we are asking for. In fact, it is something the Conservatives have suggested before to make life more affordable for Canadians. The Liberals took up some of our Conservative ideas, like getting rid of the carbon tax, but they then turned around and said they were going to create the industrial carbon tax. It was kind of a bait-and-switch move. That industrial carbon tax applies to farmers.

In terms of refining more product here, that is another old issue. During the fuel shortage in B.C., Premier Horgan himself said that we needed more refining capacity and the best place to do that was in Alberta. That is what we are talking about today. We need to cut the red tape and get more capacity to address affordability issues for Canadians.

What made it absurd in B.C. was that at the time, the B.C. NDP were using every tool in the tool box to shut down the pipeline from Alberta to B.C., even though they were told that legally they could not do it and constitutionally they could not do it. They were using every tool to shut down the pipeline. The Alberta NDP, which was in power at the time, then created legislation to turn off the taps to stop fuel from flowing to British Columbia.

We had the NDP fighting the NDP. What did the B.C. NDP do? They threatened to go to court. This is after B.C. was entertaining a legal challenge to stop a pipeline from Alberta to B.C. B.C. turned around and said that if Alberta shut down the pipeline that sent fuel to B.C., it was going to go to court. I was sitting in the legislature scratching my head thinking that on one hand, we did not want oil shipped to B.C., but on the other hand, we wanted the fuel to continue.

The interprovincial trade barrier that the Prime Minister promised to get rid of is a lot bigger than wine. It has gotten to the point where we are talking about diversifying away from the United States, but not touching fuel products because everybody knows how interconnected we are. Yes, we produce diesel here. We could produce more, but we take crude oil and pipe it to the United States, and it turns it into fuel products like jet fuel, gasoline and diesel and sells it back to us.

If we want to be an energy superpower, if we want to be more independent, we have to look at refineries. If we want to address affordability, we have to look at refineries, that supply and demand. Being part of the G7, Canada was part of that announcement saying that we were going to release more reserves to alleviate the crunch. Canada does not have reserves.

I ask every member in this House to please support our motion to make life more affordable for Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my friend could provide his thoughts. After serving in the B.C. legislature, does he recognize the important role that provincial governments, in particular, have in dealing with issues like natural resources?

We talk about refineries and whether we want to increase the number of refineries. It has not been confirmed, but I think we have 16 or 17 refineries across the country. If we want to increase that number, the only way that could really be done in a practical way is by getting the three major stakeholders together, the private sector, provincial government and its entities, and the federal government. By working collaboratively, we might be able to get some more refineries built.

Could I get his thoughts on that?

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think we are having the same conversation about Pacific link, but the price tag for that pipeline is going to be enormous. Who is going to pay for that? It will be the taxpayer.

It is possible, but I think in terms of a crisis and talking about affordability, and the supply and demand of diesel and fuel products, this conversation is long overdue. It should have happened 10 years ago.