Debates of April 14th, 2026

Opposition Motion—Fuel Taxes

[Alana Hirtle, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would say that the majority of Canadians will be travelling this summer, as it will be the tourist season, and this will be a significant savings for those individuals coming home to visit their friends and relatives this year.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Mirabel, who is also often my friend.

As we know, gas prices have skyrocketed since the start of Donald Trump's and Israel's war against Iran. The military operation, which began on February 28, led Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz, that handles 20% of global oil. The U.S. forces had anticipated this and warned that it would happen, and it did.

Today, we are dealing with the Conservative motion, and the Prime Minister just announced that he is suspending the excise tax until Labour Day, which will cost about $2.5 billion. This is a blanket measure, but a targeted one might have been a better idea.

In today's motion, the Conservatives are proposing a measure with a total annual cost of $13 billion, which would increase the deficit by 20%. Given the current state of public finances, more targeted measures should have been proposed, ones that cost less and have the most impact on the cost of living.

Furthermore, the calculations in the motion are ridiculous. For example, the motion estimates that eliminating fuel standards would save seven cents per litre. However, that is completely untrue, because with today's high oil prices, biofuels now cost about the same as fossil fuels, so there are no extra savings to be made on that front. This idea that we would save seven cents per litre is far-fetched. I would also like to point out that Quebec has its own standards.

Basically, what they are proposing here is that, since the price of oil and gas is rising, we should consume more of it. What a brilliant idea.

In their motion, the Conservatives also propose eliminating the industrial carbon tax. However, as they themselves indirectly acknowledge in their motion, this measure would not even result in a savings of 1¢ per litre. It is nothing more than a gift to the oil companies. Oil companies have production costs, and the price, which is determined globally, is rising. Consequently, oil companies are making more profit, and if we were to eliminate the industrial carbon tax for oil companies, they would receive yet another windfall that would fill the gap and remove any incentive to pollute less. As I said, the price of crude oil depends on global market prices.

I would caution the government and the Conservatives when it comes to the excise tax. Many experts, including Luc Godbout, believe that this is not the right course of action, even temporarily. A few months ago, Mr. Godbout said that we need to resist the temptation to lower the gas tax for either budget-balancing or environmental reasons. As members know, it will be hard to reinstate this tax later because Canadians will have to absorb the increase. As I said, the government needs to take targeted measures, which are more effective. However, it would seem that both sides of the House would prefer to take broad measures.

Is it wise to allow as much pollution as there is in Donald Trump's America, in other words, unlimited pollution? As members know, President Trump announced the repeal of the vehicle efficiency standard that has steadily increased vehicle range per gallon, as they say south of the border. In Canada, we refer to the number of litres per kilometre. I would remind members that this standard was introduced well before the government's commitment to address climate change. The corporate average fuel economy program, or CAFE, was adopted in 1975 to make the United States less dependent on foreign oil. At the time, vehicles averaged only 13 miles per gallon. That is why it was introduced.

Abolishing such a standard encourages manufacturers to sell larger, more polluting vehicles, since selling those vehicles is more lucrative. It also makes industry and consumers more vulnerable to price shocks and oil shocks. In the long run, consumers are the ones who lose out, because Donald Trump's reasoning, like that of the Conservatives today, neglects the savings that come from energy efficiency, in addition to completely ignoring the costs related to health and the environment.

A few weeks ago, during our last sitting week, the Conservatives proposed removing standards and incentives for the electrification of transportation. The party is against high-speed rail. We are in favour, but with reservations about how the expropriation will be done, considering the safeguards that were removed in Bill C‑15. Through all of this, the Conservatives are trying to keep us completely dependent on oil by opposing any other solution. That is their response to the current skyrocketing prices. It is something to think about.

American economist Paul Krugman wrote a blog post on this issue today. He points out that soaring oil and gas prices, combined with the threat of shortages, highlights the risks of relying on fossil fuels. He demonstrates that economies that are more reliant on oil and gas have been more impacted by the soaring prices than those that use other sources. I would therefore like to repeat my question: Is the solution to remain reliant on fossil fuels?

Paradoxically, Krugman explains that while Trump cancelled the previous administration's plan to develop more renewable energy, his adventurism in Iran has sparked a global rush to invest in solar power, wind power and batteries. Where will the world procure most of the renewable energy equipment it seeks? From China. As we know, China is the workshop of the world. Krugman notes that China's manufacturing sector is larger than those of the United States, Japan, Germany and South Korea combined.

While China is strong in many industries, it is utterly dominant in electrotechnology, the cluster of solar panel, wind turbine, battery and electric vehicle industries at the heart of the renewable energy revolution. Krugman cites the Wall Street Journal, which notes that China's green industrial complex reigns supreme. China accounts for more than 80% of global production in all these sectors, with the exception of wind turbines, where China's share is 60%, with Europe retaining a significant role. China uses most of its production within its own economy. It is designed not only for export, but to reduce its dependence on oil and gas.

Krugman notes that under President Joe Biden, the United States took much needed steps to develop their own electrotech sectors, notably batteries and electric vehicles. It sought to accelerate the growth of renewable energy in general. However, the Trump administration has cancelled all of Biden's renewable energy programs and is also actively trying to block private commercial investments in this sector. Is that what needs to happen in Canada? That is my question.

Krugman says that until America frees itself from Trump's obsession with fossil fuels, if it ever does, China's lead in renewable energy production will likely be insurmountable. He concludes that it is nonetheless unfortunate to see the United States self-destruct and yield the most important industry of the future to China. In doing so, the United States is becoming impoverished, falling behind technologically and losing influence in a world rushing toward the energy revolution. In the end, the United States is not simply burning fossil fuels, but also destroying its future.

That seems to be what is being proposed here and it also seems to correspond to the measures the government is taking in the House. When the government says it wants to be an energy superpower, it is talking about oil and gas. It is forging blindly ahead. Oil is a non‑renewable resource, and climate change is real, whether we like it or not.

The takeaway from the current crisis is that we urgently need to reduce our dependence on oil and aim for more stable and more sustainable economic development. Europe is choosing that path. We can do the same. As Krugman pointed out, however, the problem is that China is manufacturing everything at the moment.

However, we could play a role here. Quebec has everything it takes to do so because our strength lies in the new clean economy. We do not have any oil, but we have renewable energy. We have everything it takes to be one of the key links in the new supply chain for states that are working to reduce their dependence on oil and gas. That is where our future lies. We need to support the development of a whole new sector, that of processing the resources that we have already. We need to embrace this shift toward reducing our dependence on oil and gas so that we can compete with China, which already has a huge advantage. However, that is not the choice that Ottawa has made so far. That is not what today's motion is proposing. These are missed opportunities for Quebec.

The current global context is giving us the opportunity to make the most of Quebec's strengths, to reconnect with our true nature and to act as a bridge between North America and Europe. However, neither the official opposition party nor the current government are promoting that approach.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, it is so interesting that my esteemed colleague quoted Paul Krugman. I am a big fan of his, too. My colleague and I have a number of things in common, and that is just one of them.

I would like my colleague to tell us more about how the Conservatives seem fixated on clean fuel regulations. Specifically, they want to get rid of those regulations. Does my colleague understand why that is? I do not understand it.

How does he interpret our colleagues' fixation?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as economists, I am sure we have a number of passions and topics of conversation in common.

First, Quebec has its own standards, which means that, if Ottawa were to change its standard, nothing would change in Quebec. Second, the Conservatives have made up this wacky number, seven cents per litre, based on an outdated analysis from when oil prices were lower.

Now they are putting this out there at a time when oil prices are rising and are equivalent to biofuel prices. Getting rid of that standard would be nothing more than a gift to oil companies, just like getting rid of the industrial carbon tax would boost their bottom line without bringing down the price at the pump. What this really is is lobbying in the interest of the oil industry.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my Bloc Québécois colleague, who gave an excellent speech, in my view. We have a very good MP representing the riding of Joliette—Manawan, and we need more contributions from members like him.

There is a lot of drama on the Conservative side. It almost seems as though they are blaming the government for the rise in gas prices, when in reality, if we look at the figures and data, the oil companies' operating costs did not go up when the price of a barrel of oil went up. The oil companies simply increased their profits.

Rather than cutting taxes, are there any other measures that could target oil companies directly?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are also dealing with inflation, where people are paying more for everything. There is that element. Also, in the trucking industry, for example, trucks cannot be converted to a different technology overnight. They must continue to be filled with diesel, which is more expensive. Would a measure targeting that aspect have been more effective and less costly?

I would note that what is being proposed today will cost over $13 billion per year. That is a lot of money, and it will all be added to the deficit. Is that really the most effective solution? We need to work on more targeted measures. The inflation caused by the war started by Donald Trump and his ally Israel is clearly having an impact, but is the solution to adopt measures like this one that will cost a fortune? What it boils down to is, should the deficit be increased? I do not believe it should.

We clearly need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and maybe find a better way to collect taxes from the oil companies, which are primarily foreign-owned. For every dollar of profit they earn, 75¢ leaves Canada. This merits investigation.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a known fact that the world is using more oil now and will be for the next 40 years. We have the most efficient, environmentally appropriate means of getting oil out of the ground. We have that ability and that resource. However, what I am hearing from people in this House is that they would rather get it from other countries that are not as conscientious as we are about our environment. I know that Quebec itself has a great deal of oil under the ground, but it is choosing not to do that right now, not until it becomes its own nation, I understand.

Why do the government and these individuals not understand the reality that our government is making incredible money on that oil price right now and it will not—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I have to give the hon. member a little time to reply.

The hon. member for Joliette—Manawan has 30 seconds to respond.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to say, but 30 seconds is not enough time to get through it all.

The current crisis revolves around an oil shortage and rising costs. The answer is not to get even more oil out of the ground, but to reduce our reliance on it. If the member would stop talking long enough to let me answer in the few seconds I have left, I would tell her that the solution is not to rely even more on oil and suffer through the kinds of price spikes we are seeing now. The solution is to make oil a thing of the past. Economist Paul Krugman says that countries that are less oil-dependent are less affected.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Joliette—Manawan for giving an excellent and very informative speech, as usual. His answers to the questions were equally insightful.

We are here to discuss gas prices, because the situation today is truly troubling, distressing and worrisome for families. One of the reasons we are discussing this issue today, if not the only reason, is President Trump's Iran excursion, to put it politely, which has made the Strait of Hormuz impassable today. Roughly one-fifth of the world's oil and gas transits through the strait and supplies many of our trading partners. This troubling situation is affecting the price of a barrel of oil and has had a knock-on effect on the price at the pump, which recently jumped by $2. We understand why people at home are worried, especially people who have to fill up their cars.

I also recently looked at some data from Statistics Canada on the price of a litre of unleaded gas at a self-service gas station in the Montreal census metropolitan area for the past 20 years, and I adjusted the data to real 2025 dollars. What is surprising is that, in the long term, the price of gas goes up very little on average. Rising gas prices are not the problem.

What we are seeing is that the price of gas goes up and down a lot. We know that households are always vulnerable to price increases and price decreases and that they cannot predict those prices and budget for them, which is what worries me. This happened shortly after the pandemic, when gas prices were almost $2 a litre in today's dollars. The government did not suspend the excise tax on gasoline at the time, mainly because there were no Conservatives ready to cross the floor. There was no need to attract them. It was not that important to the government. That is where we are today. We have a problem with fluctuating gas prices.

I was at committee yesterday with the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin. We heard from experts who said that, over the years, household incomes and real purchasing power have increased for some but not all households. Roughly 75% or 80% of the wealthiest, or least poor, Canadians have seen their incomes rise, while nearly 20% of people in Quebec and Canada have seen their incomes stagnate. Those 20% are the most vulnerable. There is a double phenomenon happening here. First, we have the poorest people, whose incomes are stagnating, who are faced with significant fluctuations in gas prices but still have to fill up their tanks. Then we have the 80% of people whose incomes have increased, while on average and over the long term, gas prices have remained fairly stable overall.

What is happening with these people, the ones who can cope with these fluctuations? We are in a situation where the number of vehicles is increasing faster than the population and where vehicles' size and fuel consumption have almost doubled over the past 20 or 25 years. Some people with incomes are polluting more and more, yet today, the government is proposing to gift them with a measure made all the worse by what the official opposition is proposing. For people who are less well off, filling up at the gas station puts a strain on their budget.

Obviously, one plus one equals two. As my colleague from Joliette—Manawan has said, the Conservative Party cannot complain endlessly about the deficit, say that the government cannot balance its budget, and call for a return to a balanced budget while also proposing such measures. Just discussing the substance of the motion undermines their own credibility. Today, the government proposed a temporary measure to suspend the excise tax on gas. Will that help the poorest people, who are grappling with higher gas prices? Perhaps. Is this the best measure? Is it sufficiently targeted? Probably not. Is it going to be a very costly way of redistributing a small amount of money to the poorest households? We will have to wait and see.

We will also have to see whether oil companies decide to pass on the tax cut to consumers. When people are forced to use their cars to get to work because they do not have access to public transit and cannot afford small electric vehicles, they are extremely vulnerable in the short term. Their demand for gas is fixed, and they are at the oil companies' mercy. There is nothing in the proposals from either side that would protect these people. It seems like the gas stations were the ones getting a handout today.

The Conservative motion veers back into populism and tries to make people believe that gas prices can be drastically lowered with the snap of a finger. I would urge the Conservatives to be cautious, because we are in a political environment where the Liberal government has turned into a Conservative government. Even the most conservative Conservatives are crossing the floor. They used to table this type of motion to put on a political show, but now, each time they rise to table a motion like this, the government imitates them.

I do not want anyone listening this morning to imagine that the Prime Minister was concerned about households' purchasing power two days ago. He is concerned about getting Conservative members over to his side. Every time he plays this game, every time the government does something the Conservatives have been calling for, people cross the floor. That is why I urge the Conservatives to be cautious, because they are pushing the Liberal government to become increasingly conservative at their own expense.

As I said, this is populist. For months, the Conservatives have been saying that the industrial carbon tax should be eliminated to lower the price at the pump. The governor of the central bank, Mr. Macklem, actually told the committee that this tax mainly applies to imported products and would not have any impact on inflation. He practically had to pound his fist on the table in the middle of the committee meeting to get the message through to the Conservatives that if he wanted to lower the cost of living for households, he would look elsewhere. It is important to note that.

What should be done? Obviously, the focus should be on the households that are the most vulnerable to these fluctuations. That is how a long-term solution will be found. If the government takes temporary measures every time the price of gas fluctuates, instead of adopting long-term measures for the energy transition, the long term will become a long sequence of short-term measures that do not solve the underlying problems, and the most vulnerable households will grow even more vulnerable with every crisis. This is exactly what we are seeing today: a predominance of short‑term policies in Parliament for political gain, though it is true that some households will benefit in this case.

I want to say one thing. The government previously announced a deficit of $80 billion. A few weeks ago, it added a vote‑buying cheque, which it called the grocery rebate, that represents a total of $4 billion to $5 billion. The measure announced today adds $2.5 billion in new spending. No one has any idea how much public money is being spent anymore. Meanwhile, the real purchasing power of households is also being affected by access to health care and access to education services. We need to increase productivity. We need to support the provinces' ability to provide these services and offer preschool, primary, secondary and university education. The provinces are being squeezed.

Funds have been allocated for public transit. However, as my colleague, the transport critic, said several times, the money is stuck in Ottawa. That is part of the long-term solution. We need infrastructure. It is clear from the state of our streets that we have an infrastructure problem. The money needs to be transferred to the provinces. What is the point of lowering the price of gas if cars blow a tire every time people drive down a public road? There is a cost associated with that, which affects households.

I would like to touch on one last thing related to rising gas prices, and that is productivity. Oil and gas are production inputs, and when a shock like the one we are currently experiencing occurs, it has a negative impact on productivity. The Prime Minister and the government keep telling us that we need to increase our productivity. One of the best ways to do that is to stop being so vulnerable to fluctuating oil prices. When oil prices go up, production costs more, we produce less per worker and we are less able to increase wages. That harms investment. The government is in the oil business. Our oil and gas supply is secure. The oil and gas we use is almost exclusively North American. We cannot have a government that talks about productivity and yet continues to make our businesses more vulnerable to fluctuating oil prices.

I think it is high time that this Parliament started thinking about the long term. I was elected nearly five years ago, and I have yet to see that happen.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, we are on a roll. We have had two or three economists speak in a row. We are going to end up taking over the House of Commons.

My question for my esteemed colleague and fellow committee member concerns the need for government support to be well targeted.

Does he believe that the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, which builds on the GST tax credit, provides targeted assistance to those who truly need it?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am quite fond of the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin. It is a pleasure to work with him.

The answer is yes. That is why we voted in favour of that benefit and that is why we welcomed that cheque. That is exactly what we were saying. This cheque, which is the former GST rebate, takes into account household composition, family allowances and income. It is targeted, and it is the kind of measure that we want because we can redistribute more money while spending less.

What surprises me is that, just a few weeks ago, the government acknowledged that this was the right approach, but today, on this Conservative opposition day, it has decided that implementing targeted measures is no longer the way to go. I find this inconsistency hard to understand. I am even wondering why the government did not decide to tell us this morning that it might need to rethink the format of this cheque in order to be consistent.

Saying one thing three weeks ago and saying something else today is no way to be consistent in formulating public policy.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With regard to Standing Order 43(2)(a), the Conservative slots will now all be split in half.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I thank the member for his intervention.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague made an eloquent speech, but I would like to ask the member, how long does he think it is going to take? How many years is it going to take before he feels we can lose our dependency on fuel? He would like to change things so that we are not dependent on it anymore, and yet it is well known that this could take years.

In my riding of Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, a lot of people cannot afford electric cars. They need to drive trucks because they work in agriculture or they work in professions where they need a large car, vehicles that are not even available as electric at this point.

How many years is it going to take, and how many people are going to have to suffer if we do not take the taxes off fuel?

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

Mr. Speaker, I take issue with the question itself. The structure of the question seems like sophistry. What the member is saying is that because the transition will take time, there is no point in doing it step by step and we should abandon the attempt altogether and just drown ourselves in oil.

We have consistently acknowledged that this will take time. We have not said that all pipelines must be shut down. We have said, and this is consistent with the International Energy Agency's position, that we should not undertake new projects. We need to embark on a transition to secure the new energy that we need, taking a step-by-step approach.

What the Conservatives are saying is that since this cannot be done right away, there is no point in doing it at all, because people will suffer if the whole thing cannot be done right away. It is like a dog chasing its tail. It is not going to get very far. I think we need to take a step-by-step approach and act responsibly. We need policies that incentivize a transition. No one here in Parliament has ever said that we will suddenly stop needing oil and gas one day. That has never happened.

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

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague accurately pointed out, this morning's Liberal announcement will not necessarily benefit the most vulnerable people specifically. It will also run up the deficit.

Can my colleague expand on this and talk about how increasing the deficit could affect the most vulnerable because of inflation and other factors?

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

Mr. Speaker, this reminds me of the discussion we had yesterday and the witnesses we heard from at the finance committee. We all agreed that Canada has a productivity problem and that we need to grow our collective wealth. We also have to make sure that people's income, especially that of the poorest 20% of households, rises faster than the cost of living. That calls for private investment.

We also agree that there is a deficit and that we will not wipe it out in two or three years. We are all realistic about that. However, every dollar the government borrows is a resource that is not necessarily available for loans to the private sector and for more productive investments.

The long-term plan has to focus on productivity. Continuing to run up deficits and increase spending recklessly, day after day, every time the Conservatives move an opposition motion is totally at odds with what the Prime Minister says on a daily basis.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are moments in public life when a government is tested not by what it says, but by what it does when people are hurting. This is one of those moments. Across the country, Canadians are not just frustrated; they are stretched to the breaking point. They are making trade-offs that no family in a prosperous nation should have to make. They are choosing between filling the tank and filling the fridge, between getting to work and paying the mortgage, between keeping the lights on and keeping food on the table. At the centre of that pressure is the simple and avoidable reality: the cost of fuel. Here at home, fuel is not a luxury. It is not discretionary. It is the lifeblood of our economy. It is how a nurse gets to a night shift. It is how a contractor gets to a job site. It is how food gets from the farm to shelf. When fuel costs rise, everything else rises, and yet while Canadians here at home are paying more, Ottawa's coffers are taking in more. The Liberal government is cashing in on higher oil prices while forcing Canadians to pay more at the pump, making work more expensive, family life more expensive and running a business more expensive.

Let me put it plainly. Canadians are being squeezed, and the Liberal government is profiting from that squeeze. That is why Conservatives are calling for zero tax on gas to give Canadians a break, not Liberal half measures that cut the tax half the way and for half the time.

Last week, when asked what he would do about rising gas prices, the Liberal Prime Minister said, “That's something we're looking at.” Canadians do not need a Liberal government that is looking. They need a government that is doing. While the Liberal Prime Minister is following gas prices, Canadians here at home are falling behind. Every day of delay is another day families fall further behind.

I want to tell the House about a woman I met in my riding of Richmond Hill South, a mother who works two jobs, one during the day and one on weekends. She does everything right. She budgets. She saves where she can. She does not ask for handouts. She only asks for a fair shot. Last week, she told me that filling up her car now costs her nearly $100. That is not a luxury vehicle. That is a basic car that gets her to work and gets her kids to school. She told me that she does not look at the total anymore, that she just stops when she cannot afford to keep going.

Think about that for a moment. In Canada, in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, we have people who cannot afford to fill their tank, not because of laziness, not because of poor choices, but because the Liberal government in Ottawa is piling taxes on top of rising global prices. That is wrong. It is economically wrong. It is morally wrong. It is fiscally unsustainable. Canadians deserve a break. That is why Conservatives are calling on the Liberal government to scrap the 25¢ per litre on gas for all of 2026, not just simply to meet us halfway.

Let us talk about some of the facts. Yes, global events like the conflict in the Middle East have driven up oil prices. That explains part of the increase. It does not explain why Canadians here at home are paying about 28¢ a litre more for fuel than Americans do just south of the border. That difference is not geography. It is not geopolitics. It is not destiny. It is a homegrown, made-in-Ottawa Liberal tax policy. It is the result of a Liberal government that has layered tax on top of tax on top of tax and expects Canadians to just absorb it.

While Canadians here at home are struggling with higher prices, the Liberal government is enjoying a windfall. According to a former Liberal economic adviser, every $10 increase in the price of a barrel of oil generates about $2 billion in additional federal revenue in Ottawa's coffers. In recent weeks, oil prices are roughly $45 to $50 higher than the pre-war baseline. When we crunch the numbers, that is close to $9 billion to $10 billion in additional revenue flowing into Ottawa's coffers, money that is coming directly from the higher costs here at home that Canadians are paying.

Here is the question. The Liberal government is making billions more because Canadians are paying more. Why is it not giving all of that money back and suspending all gas taxes for the rest of 2026?

Conservatives are offering a clear, practical and immediate answer. Take $5 billion of that windfall to Ottawa and give it back to Canadians by removing all federal taxes on gasoline and diesel until the end of 2026, not next year, not after another study, but right now. That means suspending the 10¢-per-litre federal excise tax. It means suspending the GST on fuel, which puts about eight cents per litre on gasoline and four cents per litre on diesel. It means permanently eliminating the so-called Liberal clean fuel standard tax, which is already costing Canadians seven cents per litre and is set to rise to 17¢ per litre.

Stacked together on top of one another, these Liberal taxes add up. They are crushing. When we remove them, Canadians will save about 25¢ per litre on gasoline and 21¢ per litre on diesel. That is about $20 every time a parent fills up a minivan. On average, that is more than $1,200 back in the pockets of a family of four by the end of the year. That is money for groceries and rent, and much-needed breathing room. Here is a key point. The Liberal government can afford to do the right thing, but it is choosing not to. Why will the Liberal government not borrow our Conservative ideas and provide immediate relief for Canadians here at home by scrapping all gas taxes and its beloved Liberal industrial carbon tax?

Right now, the priority of the Liberal government is clear. It is to take more, give less and hope Canadians do not notice. Canadians across the country are noticing. They notice it every time they see a higher total at the pump, every time a delivery fee goes up and every time the grocery bill climbs even higher, because rising fuel prices do not stay at the pump. They spread through the entire economy. When transportation costs rise, suppliers raise their prices. We are already seeing it. Just last week, we learned that food producers are now introducing these new fuel surcharges on top of the food products they sell. When suppliers raise their prices, grocers pass those costs on. When that happens, families here at home pay more.

Elevated fuel and transportation costs are compounding the affordability crisis faced by families after more than a decade of Liberal policies. Food banks are now seeing over two million visits per month, including from 700,000 children. A family of four is expected to spend $17,500 on food this year, which is $1,000 more than last year. Canada has become the food inflation capital of the G7, and that is not a title to be proud of. That is a warning sign, and it is directly linked to the policies of the Liberal government here at home.

According to a recent academic study, the Liberal industrial carbon tax is undermining the competitiveness of our agri-food sector and has contributed to food prices rising 48% faster in Canada than in the United States. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has confirmed that the Liberals' so-called clean fuel regulations alone are adding seven cents per litre this year, rising to 17¢ per litre by 2030. It is starting to sound a whole lot like the Liberal consumer carbon tax. On top of that, the Liberal industrial carbon tax is rising to $170 per tonne, costing workers over $1,100 per year, shrinking the economy by 1.3% and putting 50,000 Canadian jobs at risk. These are the real consequences of Liberal ideology. The Liberals can provide immediate relief to everyday Canadians by scrapping the Liberal industrial carbon tax and suspending the punishing 25¢ per litre of tax on gas, including the Liberal fuel standard tax for all of 2026.

Canada's affordability crisis is not an unintended consequence of global factors. This is the predictable result of deliberate Liberal policy choices here at home, choices that prioritize ideology over affordability and treat working Canadians as a revenue source rather than people to serve. Let us take a step back and look at the broader picture. After a decade of Liberal government, Canada is falling behind here at home. The OECD reports persistent weakness in business investment, GDP growth is projected to decline this year and, since 2015, Canada's GDP growth rates have lagged behind the United States. A recent report shows that business investment adjusted for inflation and labour force growth has declined since its 2014 peak. More than half of Canadians are not living in their ideal home, mortgage affordability continues to worsen across the country and young people are being completely priced out. This is not a blip. It is a pattern.

Here at home, Canadians are facing higher costs, lower growth and fewer opportunities and now, instead of course correcting, the Liberal government is doubling down. The Liberal Prime Minister told Canadians he would bring serious economic leadership and reverse the damage of the last Liberal prime minister, but Canadians here at home are still waiting while costs rise, while wages fall behind and while their government looks at their problem. Canadians have been pinching their pennies long enough. It is time for the Liberal government to pinch its own.

Other countries understand this. Australia, Spain, Ireland, Italy, Germany and Austria have all moved to cut fuel taxes to provide direct relief at the pump. Behind every statistic is a real person here at home, working hard, doing everything right and still falling behind. The mother of two working two jobs should not need a pay raise just to fill up her tank.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, fuel prices are, indeed, very high. Crude oil prices went from about $60 a barrel at the end of February to about $100 a barrel at the moment, and they might even go much higher. The Strait of Hormuz remains closed. I do not think that has anything to do with Liberal policy.

In the motion of our colleagues, they point to the permanent elimination of the fuel standards regulations. Really? In 2026, they want to permanently eliminate fuel standards? Is that what the Conservatives stand for?

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives are calling for the permanent scrapping of Liberal taxes. That includes the 10¢ federal excise tax and the GST on top of all those taxes, and the Liberals' so-called clean fuel standard tax.

Let us not forget that the 25¢-a-litre tax, the removal of which we are calling for, is a Liberal made-in-Ottawa problem. It cannot just be blamed on global oil prices. This is a time when Canadians are facing an affordability challenge. Two million Canadians are relying on food banks, and 700,000 of them are children. As well, food prices are expected to rise by about $1,000 for a family this year.

Conservatives are providing real solutions. Will the Liberals support this?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised by what the Conservatives are proposing today. I am not surprised that it is yet another pro-oil proposal, as we are used to that, but I am surprised that they are proposing to increase the deficit by more than $7 billion with all these tax exemptions.

Meanwhile, every time the government delivers a deficit budget, they get all worked up about it, although perhaps they have good reason to do so, since recent deficits have been quite excessive. The Conservative leader has said that every new expenditure would be offset by savings, but they are still proposing to add $7 billion to the deficit. Where are the savings the Conservatives are proposing, or are they suggesting that that government should simply run a bigger deficit?

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is not deficit spending. This is taking from the windfall that Ottawa is receiving from elevated oil prices. The Liberal government is not returning that money, which belongs to Canadians, and putting it in the pockets of Canadians at a time of an affordability crisis.

Even for people who do not drive or take public transit, fuel tax still affects the price they pay at the grocery store. Just last week, we learned that a major food producer is now slapping a fuel surcharge on all the food they are selling in bulk. Eventually that is going to make its way to the prices at the grocery store.

Conservatives are calling on the Liberal government to do the right thing and scrap the 25¢-a-litre tax on gas for the rest of 2026.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives on this side have been listening to Canadians, and that is why we have brought forth the cutting of gas taxes. Today we have seen that the Prime Minister has caved to Conservatives, because we are actually listening to Canadians, but again it is not all the way. It is halfway.

I would like my colleague to enlighten us on why this is so important to his riding, because I know his riding is a transportation hub as well. Can he let us know what it would mean to scrap all the gas taxes for a full year and not just halfway until Labour Day?

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes, it would affect everyone across the country, including residents in my riding of Richmond Hill South, whether that is in lower food prices, lower transportation costs or a lower price to pay at the pump.

Instead of focusing on delivering on solutions to address the affordability challenges the Liberal government has caused, the Liberal government is laser-focused on trying to stitch together a Liberal majority government through dirty backroom deals that Canadians did not vote for and to overcome the power of the people. The Liberal government should be focused on Canadians rather than on dirty backroom deals.