Debates of Oct. 6th, 2026

Opposition Motion—Diesel Prices

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

Mr. Speaker, the Quebec government's position will become clearer. I think we can see where it is heading on this issue. I think we are seeing a consensus emerge.

One thing is certain: The government has been spreading disinformation on this matter from the start. We have the Parliamentary Budget Officer's assessment. We are being told that the costs provided were off by at least 30%, and we do not even have the analysis of the request yet. We do not know about passenger-kilometre subsidies, but we do know that the project will not finance itself.

When it reaches $140 billion, $150 billion, $160 billion or $170 billion, knowing that infrastructure budgets are interconnected, who is going to pay for that? It will be Quebeckers, when it comes to paratransit, public transit and east-west mobility in the Laurentians, which we need in the Laurentians. When budgets exceed that amount, it does not show up anywhere.

We have been sounding the alarm from the very beginning. I am saying that we were right too soon. Every new fact that comes to light—independent facts from people who are not paid by Alto to invent studies and facts—proves that we were right. I think the government should recognize that and give us more credibility.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what I found interesting in my colleague's speech is that he gave examples of assistance measures that could be targeted to individuals and businesses that use diesel and that could benefit from a reduction or some form of assistance to deal with higher diesel prices.

Does my colleague think that some of those target groups would be farmers, for example?

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

Mr. Speaker, when we look at the excise tax bill, for example, we see that it contains a number of provisions, because agricultural diesel, which is dyed diesel, gets special tax treatment. It is not taxed in the same way. We have the fiscal and legal tools to be able to target support measures and, at a lower cost to taxpayers, remove pressure and lift the lid on the most sensitive parts of the supply chain where rising diesel costs have the greatest impact, even on people who do not drive. We need to think about the people who walk, ride their bikes and take public transit. I have news for my colleagues: These people also eat, so we need to think about that.

That is why the Bloc Québécois is making broad but targeted proposals that would have a significant impact on taxpayers' purchasing power while being fiscally responsible. As I said, I do not understand why there is not unanimous support for this type of measure.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague from Mirabel, I would like to extend my sincere congratulations to the new Premier of Quebec, Paul St‑Pierre Plamondon. I will point out that the Quebec National Assembly now has a majority of separatist members, if we add together the members of the Parti Québécois and Québec solidaire. That may be a good thing for the future.

I would also like to congratulate the candidates elected in my region, in Saguenay. I am thinking in particular of Marie‑Karlynn, with whom I loved working, and my young friend Émile Simard, who has the same name as my son. A few people sent congratulations to my son yesterday after Émile Simard was elected in Dubuc. I am also thinking of my dear friend Jimmy Bouchard in Jonquière. I am really looking forward to working with him. I would also like to recognize the candidates who lost. People make friends in politics. I am particularly thinking of Yannick Gagnon of Coalition Avenir Québec, who lost the election in Jonquière. He is still a dedicated member of the community who cares deeply about making life better for the people in the Saguenay region. My hat goes off to him, and I hope that his future career will be everything he hopes for.

Let us return to the motion. As I often say, it is Groundhog Day: The Conservatives' love affair with the oil and gas sector continues to repeat itself. Everything is an excuse to advance the interests of the oil companies. There is a contradiction here: The Conservatives are using their opposition day to argue that we should provide more support to the oil and gas sector so that it can export more. Even with the rising cost of living, the Conservatives still see this as an opportunity to advance the interests of the oil companies. The crisis in the Strait of Hormuz is driving up the price of diesel right now, and the Conservatives see this as yet another opportunity to advance the interests of the oil companies. Perhaps they have managed to inspire the Liberals. As I will explain in my speech, so far, the world champions at advancing the interests of the oil companies have been the Liberals.

Let us return briefly to the motion. Personally, as my colleague from Mirabel demonstrated very clearly, I do not believe that eliminating these taxes would help people who are being hit by higher diesel prices. Instead, as we know, it is the oil companies that will once again benefit from the handouts bestowed upon them by the government and the Conservative opposition. A number of experts have said so. I am thinking in particular of Luc Godbout, as well as Normand Mousseau from the Trottier Energy Institute. At the end of the day, when we take a closer look, who are the big winners when a tax on gasoline or diesel is eliminated? It is big oil.

To me, it does not make sense to deprive the government of revenue in order to support the profiteers in the oil and gas sector. I do not see the logic in that. As we know, the needs are immense. Think about education and the health transfers, which are often lacking. A balanced federal budget is far from a certainty. The deficit is skyrocketing. I do not think we need to make matters worse by eliminating the diesel tax. Instead, as my colleague from Mirabel said very clearly, we need to find targeted measures to support the people who are hardest hit. Let us be clear: reducing government revenue so that everyone has to pay more, while increasing oil companies' profits, is a very bad idea.

That said, I want to address another issue. Let us talk about the federal government's lavish generosity and shamelessness when it comes to oil and gas. I am going to share some staggering figures. Rest assured, they will evoke some strong feelings. Between 2021 and 2024, oil and gas companies raked in $131 billion in profits. Of that $131 billion in profits, $80 billion was paid out as dividends to oil and gas companies. I would like to point out that 80% of Canada's oil and gas companies are owned by foreign interests. Of that 80%, approximately 60% are American.

We are talking about $80 billion in dividends. That means that every year, $12.5 billion leaves Canada and goes to the United States. We are in a trade war. That is $12.5 billion flowing directly from Canada to the United States, based on the period from 2021 to 2024. In July of this year, Cenovus announced that it would post record profits for its second quarter. It posted a profit of $2.8 billion, four times as much as in 2025.

What are we being told today? The Conservatives are once again proposing handouts for the oil and gas sector. Meanwhile, the government, with the support of the Conservatives, wants to make Canada an energy superpower. The Prime Minister has said so repeatedly.

When we look at the situation, we have to ask where Canada's energy exports are going. Between 70% and 80% of our energy exports go directly to the United States. We are in a tariff war with the U.S. The U.S. is our main customer when it comes to energy exports. One of the only products not subject to tariffs is oil. If we take a closer look at the export figures, we will see that, in 2025, 91% of our oil exports went directly to the United States.

What is the federal government's strategy? Its strategy is to say that we need to build oil and gas infrastructure so our economy can resist pressure from the United States. Who benefits from building this infrastructure, though? This is the outrageous part. New infrastructure benefits the greedy oil and gas companies that do not want to pay for it, and it also directly benefits Americans. The government is using public money to pay for oil and gas infrastructure for the profiteers in the energy sector. Ultimately, that benefits the Americans collecting dividends. I think that is as absurd as it gets.

The economic sectors subject to tariffs are receiving little to no support from the government. We paid $34 billion for the Trans Mountain pipeline. Each and every one of us paid for it. The Leader of the Opposition had the decency to point out that oil and gas companies were corporate welfare recipients. I rarely agree with him, but he was right. These companies are making record profits, yet they do not want to pay for their infrastructure.

What is more, the government is adding insult to injury by saying that it will fund another project, the Pacific link pipeline, which will cost about $43 billion. That is $34 billion spent on the Trans Mountain expansion project and $43 billion spent on the Pacific link pipeline. It is also important to note that, last year, the fossil fuel industry received $10 billion in subsidies. That brings the total up to about $85 billion. I am not talking about the construction of Trans Mountain; I am talking about the financial support provided by the federal government. This support amounts to $85 billion since 2020.

It is clear that the federal government has made its bed. Its main goal in the tariff crisis is to support the only sector that is not subject to tariffs: oil. It is also the only sector that primarily serves Americans, since they are the majority owners of the oil and gas companies. Canada is investing billions of dollars in this industry. What the Conservatives are asking us to do today is to be even more generous and eliminate a tax. Once again, this would mean that taxpayers would end up footing the bill for these greedy companies. It is outrageous.

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

Mr. Speaker, I understand where Bloc members are coming from on the issue. They have a great deal of reservations with the affordability plan, in essence, or they have started questioning it: Is the tax break being passed on to the consumer? I think it is a fair comment.

We have provided assurances. The Prime Minister and the government, recognizing the issue of affordability, see this as a way to support Canadians and businesses in the short term. It is being taken all the way to April in one form or another.

It is an affordability issue. The assurance has been provided to the Bloc that we are ensuring the tax break goes to our constituents. I am wondering if the Bloc can be very clear on whether it supports the tax break.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite surprising to hear an elected official rise and say that there is a connection between giving consumers a break by reducing the tax on gasoline. It is quite surprising when we consider the context, knowing that this government is investing an obscene amount of money, billions of dollars, in the only sector that is not tariffed.

If they really want to help the people who need it most, they should increase old age security by $110 a year instead of paying $43 billion for a pipeline. They should take that money and give it to the people who truly need it, instead of supporting an economic sector that generally benefits only Americans.

A member must be pretty brainwashed to defend that kind of idea.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. He seems to be assuming that if we lower taxes, the oil companies will pocket that money.

We could discuss and debate that, but what I find unfortunate about his remarks is that he overlooked the fact that diesel prices are currently rising. Let me give an example from the agricultural sector. This fall, farmers have pay up to 25¢, 30¢, 40¢ or 60¢ more per litre to bring in the fall harvest, a harvest that will not necessarily sell for a higher price, because farmers sell their products at the prevailing world market prices. They are the ones who will have to absorb this staggering increase in energy costs.

I think it would be a good idea to give them a little breathing room, but my colleague does not seem to agree that consumers should get that breathing room.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have two quick things to say. First, we support targeted measures. My colleague from Mirabel made that clear earlier.

As for what my colleague said in his preamble, he should look at Ontario. Taxes there were cut significantly. However, it is not taxpayers, not ordinary Canadians, who benefited, but the big oil and gas companies.

The amount of support Canada is giving the oil and gas sector is obscene. Ten, 15 or 20 years from now, when people look back on this time, they will realize that this was one of Canada's worst mistakes. Most countries, especially European countries, have embarked on an energy transition. Here, the government is doing the worst thing it can do, which is investing in oil and gas to support these people who are making record profits.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always nice to listen to my colleague lay the groundwork for the kind of analysis that really is lacking here in the House when it comes to any of the issues surrounding the oil industry.

In his question, my Conservative colleague seemed to imply that we were not in favour of helping farmers who are currently struggling because the diesel they need to harvest their crops now costs them twice as much. However, that is not the Bloc's position; quite the contrary.

Could my colleague tell us about the targeted measures we would agree to that would help farmers reduce their production costs?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we need to look at the targeted measures my colleague from Mirabel mentioned earlier. However, the government has yet to carry out an analysis.

By introducing blanket measures and scrapping all taxes on diesel and gas, it is propping up the oil and gas companies. We must support the people, we must take a step back, and, above all, we must ensure that this type of measure does not end up allowing the oil and gas companies to become even richer.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the MP for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

There is an old saying in military circles: Amateurs talk strategy; professionals talk logistics. It is as true on a farm as it is in an army. Getting a crop in the ground and off the field is a logistics exercise from start to finish to have the right equipment in the right place at the right time with fuel in the tank, and that fuel is diesel. Diesel is not a luxury fuel. It runs the tractor and the combine. It runs the grain truck and the locomotive that takes the crop to port. It runs the potash mine and the gravel hauler, and the pickup trucks that Canadian workers drive every day. Nothing in Canada's food system moves without it. Right now, Canadians are paying more for it than they should, for reasons this government can control.

Last month, diesel fuel averaged $2.74 a litre in Canada and a year ago, it was about $1.53. That is an increase of nearly 80%. On September 28, Canadians were paying about 24¢ a litre more than the American average and 31¢ more than the world average. This is a country with the fourth-largest oil reserves in the world. Global turmoil explains why prices went up everywhere. It does not explain why they are higher here.

Let me talk about home. Harvest in Saskatchewan has not been kind this year. With waterlogged fields, heat, hail and delays, producers in my riding were already behind, and then diesel costs spiked at precisely the moment they needed it most. Grain Growers of Canada estimates that fuelling a single large combine would cost more than $15,000 more this harvest than it did last year. Reporting out of Saskatchewan this fall put the added cost of diesel fuel at roughly $20 an acre. The president of the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan summed it up plainly, saying that “[i]n the spring, [farmers faced] record...fertilizer prices. Now [it is] record...diesel prices, and on top of that, [trade uncertainties threaten what they will get for the crop].... [They are] looking at higher expenses and possibly lower returns.”

Here is what members opposite need to understand about agriculture. Farmers are price takers. A manufacturer can raise the price of what they sell. A canola grower near Lanigan or a wheat farmer outside of Moose Jaw cannot. They sell whatever the world price is that day, less the cost of freight. Every cent added to the cost of diesel fuel comes straight out of their margin. There is nobody to pass it on to and the diesel bill does not stop at the farm gate. The grain is trucked to the elevator. It goes by rail to the coast. The fertilizer comes back the other way. Processors, packers and grocers all run on fuel. The cost compounds at every link in the chain and it lands at the checkout in Moose Jaw and in downtown Toronto alike. Tax the farmers' fuel and that is taxing the food. Tax the truckers' fuel and that is taxing everything they carry.

I expect the government members will stand up today and say they have already acted. They suspended the federal excise tax on fuel and they have extended that suspension. I will give them that. It was the right call. Conservatives called for it and Canadians welcomed it. However, let us look at the calendar. Under the government's own plan, the excise tax on diesel fuel comes back at half-rate on February 1 and at the full rate on April 1. Anyone who has spent time in rural Saskatchewan knows what this means. Farm fuel use is not spread evenly across the year. It comes in two surges: seeding in the spring and harvest in the fall. In between, through the winter, the machines sit in the shed and the fuel bill is at its lowest.

The government's relief arrives in the months when farmers are using the least diesel. The tax comes back on April 1, just around ground thaws and when the trucks that serve agriculture go back to work, when the farm trucks and the semis haul seed and fertilizing fuel out in the field and the grain is still moving to the elevator. There is relief through the quiet months, but the tax is back for the busy ones.

It does not stop with the farmer. Spring is when the seed moves, when the fertilizer moves, when the trucks and railcars that serve agriculture are running flat out. Everyone knows those leaders will carry the tax again. Some members will say it is only 4¢ a litre. In Ottawa, 4¢ sounds small, but if we multiply it across every truckload of seed and fertilizer, every load of grain to the elevator, every delivery that keeps a farm running in the spring, it is not small at all. On a farm already absorbing record fertilizer prices and record diesel prices, there is no such thing as a cost that does not matter.

Here is the question for the government: If the tax was worth suspending this fall, why is it worth bringing it back in the spring? Nobody in the House can promise diesel prices will have come down by April. If, as the government's own news release says, this relief is meant to help the food and the agriculture sectors, we should not set the end date right in the middle of the agriculture year. This is not a plan built around how farmers work. It is a plan built around a fiscal calendar in Ottawa.

Our plan is different. We would eliminate all taxes on diesel until at least Canada Day to carry farmers through seeding, not just through winter, to carry truckers through spring hauling, and give Canadians real breathing room, not a countdown.

I want to be honest with the House about something. Tax relief alone does not close a 24¢ gap. Tax relief is the bridge. Supply is the destination. Canadian diesel is more expensive than American diesel because we do not make enough of our own. In southern Saskatchewan, much of our diesel comes from the co-op refinery in Regina. It is a tremendous asset, but western Canada still relies on fuel brought in from the United States. Last year, nearly 80% of the refined petroleum products Canada imported came from the United States.

For decades, Canada has shipped its crude oil south and bought it back as gasoline and diesel as a profit to American companies. With a weak Canadian dollar, every one of those imported litres costs us more. This is not just an affordability problem, but a vulnerability. We have the resource. What we have lacked is the will to build.

For 11 years, the Liberal government has blocked and delayed the projects that would have made us self-reliant, like pipelines to carry Canadian crude oil and diesel across our own country, expanded production and a strategic reserve to protect us during shortages. Energy east was abandoned. Approval timelines stretched into decades. Investors noticed and capital went elsewhere. The result is exactly what the motion described: fewer ways to produce, refine and transport our own fuel.

Members opposite may have a new leader, but it is the same caucus and the same cabinet that built the record, and Canadians are paying for it at the pump. We have a better plan. We have shared it within my speech. We are asking the Liberal government to listen to us, to listen to the farmers within my riding and across Canada, because we are a food-producing nation. We are a breadbasket and we are starving our own people because of bad Liberal policy. There needs to be a change. We are asking for support.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note, right at the beginning, because the member tried to give the impression that the government does not understand the crop season, as an example, that the Prime Minister was elected back in April 2025, and there was a gas levy given back on April 20 of last year. I think that fit quite well in terms of the farming cycle. The issue of affordability has been very important for the government, and this is the reason we continue to extend the tax levy.

Does the member not at least recognize that fact?

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the fact that I have been here for five years. The Liberal Party has been in power for 11 years. Its members have failed to listen to the Conservatives, who have been calling out warning signs for years to be able to actually protect Canadians from the challenges we are facing globally. There has been no response. They have always said that they have had it under control, that everything is good, and then all of a sudden they are here to fix the problem. They have created the problem. Canadians deserve better.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was very fortunate about a year ago to be able to go out to this great member's area. I remember flying in on that plane and looking out the window and seeing those beautiful fields of golden canola growing. I know it is near and dear to the production of agriculture out there.

I wonder if the member who just spoke could relay exactly what this motion would do if and when passed. How much would it help those great farmers out there who are helping with these great canola fields that I witnessed when I was out in his area?

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for a real question, and I am so sorry I was not there when he came to my riding. That is just a bit of contention. I did go to Barrie, and he was not there.

To answer the question, farmers need relief. They need a government to understand what they actually do. They feed Canadians and they feed the world. Any time we put taxes on them or we make things difficult for them, whether it is with fertilizer or fuel, it affects our food and our food chain. We need a better solution for farmers. They need relief, and they are getting tired of not being heard.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking the hon. member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan for splitting his time with me.

Would he not agree there might be some fundamental principles on which we could all agree that we think that in Canada we should process raw materials before shipping them out and capturing the value-added jobs here?

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I always like to try to find the centre and a solution that appeals to everybody. We have tried to do that from our side, but we have been shut down by the Liberal government every time we have tried to propose something. I am always about value added, especially in the agriculture sector with regard to the crops we are shipping off, and that is open to all areas. We do have a refinery in Moose Jaw, and we have a refinery in Regina as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, today's Conservative opposition day motion puts forward a number of points, some of which I will agree with and some of which I will not agree with.

I want to focus on the areas of what I think is commonality. I began to suggest this in my last exchange with the hon. member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan. Today's Conservative opposition motion looks to what we could do to create more infrastructure in Canada for producing more Canadian-owned fossil fuel products. I would like to start by trying to keep my remarks to some broad principles. We should do it more often in this place, by the way. We should try to find the areas around which we can agree, and then maybe work to make those things happen.

Obviously, I think we do need a consumer carbon price. The Conservatives are not going to agree with me, but then again, neither is the new version of the Liberals.

I will take this moment to correct the Liberal member for Winnipeg North, who has said a number of times that this country elected a Prime Minister. I hate to be so persnickety about it, but in the Westminster parliamentary democracy system, we do not elect prime ministers. We elect members of the House under the Westminster parliamentary system of government, within which we are supposed to be equals. Each of us is equal to the others as members of Parliament, and the Prime Minister is to be first among equals, not lord above all. Ever since Pierre Trudeau created the Prime Minister's Office, there has been a steady, some would say, creep, and every now and then it is a major grab, for more power to the PMO.

Let us get back to first principles around resources. One of the things I would hope we could agree on is that Canada's economy lags in productivity. Would it not be good if we actually addressed that and improved Canada's productivity? What would do that? Our productivity lags when we export more raw resources. It improves when our balance is towards manufactured products where we have value added. That improves productivity always.

As a country, we have been known for a very long time as hewers of wood and drawers of water. If we are going to improve our economic future and economic sovereignty, we need to do two things. First, Canadians need to control our resources. Second, we need to process more here before we export. Those two things would make us a stronger and healthier economy. I submit that neither is happening. There is a great deal of talk about how we are diversifying our market for fossil fuel exports, and I will talk about that.

However, I will turn to the basics. We have basically become a branch plant. Earlier today, a parliamentary secretary boasted of money invested in defence contracting to a company, General Dynamics, a wholly owned subsidiary of a U.S. company. That is not a Canadian investment; that is yet another branch plant investment where we are under the control of a transnational corporation based in the U.S., in terms of that particular investment.

Basically, after at least decades or a century of lamenting that we do not control our own resources here in this country through resource sovereignty, I certainly agree with the point my hon. colleague made a moment ago that we should have strategic reserves. If we had strategic reserves of our own resources, we could control those resources and protect them from the tariffs that the White House is administering. If we used our own money to buy up, for instance, what we wanted to put in a reserve and sell only to Canadians or allies, we could do that at market prices, for instance for potash, so the producers are properly compensated. Then we would have that reserve and could protect it for Canadians.

We could even create funds. Canada savings bonds were advocated by the Green Party in the last election. We had it costed out by the Parliamentary Budget Office. It would work to create a guaranteed return on investment for individual Canadians to invest in our own economy and keep key strategic resources protected from U.S. tariffs.

However, we still maintain a rip-and-ship economy. We still export raw logs from British Columbia, when our sawmills are begging for fibre so they could work full shifts, work 24 hours of the day and keep workers employed in mill communities. However, we cannot, because we do not control our own resources. They get shipped out before processing.

Even in the great bastion of the free-market economy, the United States, the state of Alaska does not allow unprocessed salmon to be exported. In British Columbia, out it goes. We even have factory trawlers just offshore so our Canadian wild Pacific salmon that is harvested in British Columbia gets processed on Chinese-owned vessels. We have to be very careful, when we go to the grocery store, to make sure we are getting a B.C. product processed in B.C., not one that says in the fine print that it is processed in the People's Republic of China, on a factory trawler just offshore. We have to stop exporting our raw resources unprocessed.

Because of the topic of the opposition debate, I am going to extend the rest of what I am going to say. This applies to all the resources I have talked about so far. We need to improve productivity, get value added and not export before we have gathered up every ounce of economic benefit for Canada. What the Conservatives are saying in the motion is absolutely true. We export fossil fuels raw. We do not have refineries to process our own gasoline, so it goes down to the U.S., and we buy it back. Why is that? Let us just unroll that a bit.

In the early 1970s, there were 40 refineries in Canada. Now there are about 17. Why did that go down? It was not red tape. If anything, it was lax enforcement of environmental regulations that caused us to lose so many refineries. The U.S. brought in stricter air quality control standards for refineries that forced U.S. refineries to continually modernize. However, the masters of our refineries were owned by the U.S. and did not really care if ours rusted out. They did not care if we were non-competitive, because we would only be competing with them in the U.S. anyway, so they did not invest or modernize.

When the Trans Mountain pipeline was built, the first version of it through the 1950s was bringing actual crude oil from Alberta to the Lower Mainland, to Burnaby, where there were four refineries that processed it. That meant that the people who lived in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia were buying gas for their cars and diesel for their trucks that was processed locally. It cost less.

Of course, we now have one refinery left, not four, and what goes through the Trans Mountain pipeline does not go for Canadian use. It gets put in Aframax tankers. The horrible project the Liberals are going to bring is going to destroy Roberts Bank, which is a sensitive zone of an extreme level of importance ecologically. It is going to turn that into the end point for a diluted bitumen pipeline. It will put it into larger tankers and ship it offshore. It is mostly going to go due south. It does not go to Asia.

If we want to look at the little bit that goes to Asia of what we are now exporting, I will reference what is in the spring economic statement, which is the most recent update I can find. Of the fossil fuels Canada exports, 90% goes to the United States. That is after the people of Canada paid for the Trans Mountain pipeline to take diluted bitumen out of Burnaby. It mostly goes south.

What goes to China, by the way, and this might be of interest to know, is diluted bitumen. Bitumen is a solid tar substance to which a diluent is added to make it flow through a pipeline. That is all. There is no value added at all. When it gets to a refinery, the diluent has to be taken out because it is not part of an improved product. Then it is shipped back to Canada. The only part of the Kinder Morgan pipeline system the Liberals held onto when it was sold was the part that runs from the U.S. north so they could take the diluent out of the diluted mess it gets and ship it back to northern Alberta.

However, when bitumen gets to China, in the most recent statistics I can find, roughly between one-third and one-half of what gets to China is solid bitumen, tar, which it uses to pave roads. I imagine the whiz kids in the PMO who are looking for big slogans do not want to call Canada a tar superpower, so they pretend it is an energy superpower when we are shipping out diluted bitumen.

Why do we not build refineries here? It is costly. There is a low return on investment. If there were a high return on investment, producers would want to build refineries. However, the policy of the Green Party since 2019 has been that we should process our fossil fuel products here, use only Canadian oil here and not be subservient to U.S. corporations that at this point own most of the oil and gas sector in this country. It should be Canadian.

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

Mr. Speaker, I liked what the member opposite said at the beginning of her speech when she talked about how it would be good if we could work together in this place on things we have in common. Certainly, when it comes to diesel production and reducing the use of diesel in Canada, I think there are a number of strategies we could agree on, such as our electricity strategy, for example, to displace some of the diesel that is being used. Another idea is our small modular nuclear reactors. I think this would be great technology to take to the north to perhaps even heat greenhouses to address the food insecurity issue there.

I wonder if these are the kinds of things that the member was saying it would be good to work together on.

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

Mr. Speaker, I love agreeing with the member for Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong. Unfortunately, this will not be one of those occasions.

What we do not have, as she described it, is “our” small modular reactors. There is not one in commercial operation anywhere in the industrialized world. There may be one in China, but it is hard to verify. It is a future technology with lots of issues attached to it, including very high expense. If we want the cheapest, most reliable electricity, the very fastest we can get it, we would be rolling out solar and wind as fast as we could, with battery storage backup.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we have had an exchange of questions throughout my intervention and throughout her intervention about some commonalities we are facing and some of the challenges that farmers in my riding are experiencing. I would like to hear what kinds of impacts she is facing in her riding with food security and the increased costs of fuel, and how that is affecting her constituents.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the biggest irritants in my riding of Saanich—Gulf Islands is the presence of free parking for large bulk carriers in what are called anchorages. The port of Vancouver just takes ships that are partially filled and sends them to wait. As the member will know, the grain farmers suffer from the poor transportation lengths to get prairie grain shipped to the port of Vancouver and efficiently sent to their buyers.

It has gotten worse since we got rid of the wheat board, but one thing that happens is that CN and CP are not prepared. They seem not to know that, every fall, there is going to be a harvest of grain and that they should be prepared for it. There is CN, where the largest shareholders are Bill and Melinda Gates. CP's full name is the Canadian Pacific Kansas City railway. They are not very interested in whether Canadian farmers get their grain to market.

My constituents are very worried about it. One time, we had to ship grain from the Prairies by truck. The price went way up. We almost ran out of feed for livestock on Vancouver Island because we have an extremely bad supply chain. It has nothing to do with price of diesel. It is just bad planning and bad management.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on a point. We talk about diversifying, and a major aspect of that is actually working collaboratively with the different levels of government and with private industry in order to, for example, increase the number of refineries in Canada. I think it is important to recognize, when we talk about these initiatives, the projects of the future, that many of those projects are coming out of the discussions that have been taking place over the last 18 months.

I am wondering if the leader of the Green Party can actually provide her thoughts on the importance of working collaboratively, because as one government, it is very difficult to do it.

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

Mr. Speaker, nothing that has been talked about in the last 18 months, two years or five years has had anything to do with Canada's ownership of our own resources. We would have to go back to Peter Lougheed to find a leader who understood the principles of how to deal with a fossil fuel resource and how to control it. His first rule was to think like an owner. We do not. We think like serfs: What can we do to better serve the masters of the universe who own the oil and gas industry globally? They own Canada's oil and gas industry, but we pretend it is Canadian.

I am going to reference Gord Laxer's 2021 report titled “Posing as Canadian”. Ninety-eight per cent of the companies in the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers are using—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Québec Centre.