Debates of May 26th, 2026

Opposition Motion—Cancellation of Federal Taxes on Gas and Diesel and the Clean Fuel Standard

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the numbers do not lie. If the government was doing a good job on affordability, I would be the first to say, “Hey, you guys are doing a great job.” Unfortunately, the numbers and constituents, if she were to talk to her constituents the way I am talking to my constituents, say we are living in an affordability crisis. The cost of food, groceries, fuel and housing is higher after a decade of Liberal governing.

I am very proud to speak to my constituents and say that I will fight tooth and nail for more affordability in our communities, our province and our country.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I do not entirely agree with my colleague.

In fact, I have the same concern about budgetary matters. It is true that people are struggling to make ends meet. However, the problem is that cutting gas taxes and increasing oil production are counterproductive. This is simply putting things off. The planet will eventually have to be cleaned up because it will no longer be livable.

Many countries around the world have gone green and are powered by electric, wind and solar energy, and yet our Conservative colleagues are calling for a return to oil. Unfortunately, the government seems to agree with them, since gas taxes were recently scrapped.

I will therefore ask a question, and I would like my colleague to share his thoughts on this. Is it not counterproductive to boost oil production and cut taxes? Should we not instead be investing in a transition to clean energy?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, this is about providing Canadians, at a time when we are in an affordability crisis, a measure of relief. It is not total relief, but it is a measure of relief.

As my colleague would know, just one part of this is the GST. The GST is on the cost of fuel and on top of other taxes. Every time the cost of fuel increases, punishing Canadians, the government says, “We know this fuel increase is hurting Canadians, but what we're going to do, rather than lend a helping hand, is take even more for ourselves.” That is exactly what is happening, and that is what we are calling for an end to: an end to the GST on this very expensive fuel for this year, to provide Canadians up to $1,200 for a family of four in savings, and an end to all taxes on fuel for this year.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken at length, almost ad nauseam, with young adults in Essex. Basically, it has come to a point now where they are saying it is not even worth trying to save for a home.

What I really found interesting was when the member talked about what we would say to the person at the gas pump. That really resonated with me.

What is the message? What is the proper message? What do I send back to these young adults who are just trying to get ahead in Canada?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, like my hon. colleague in his riding, in my riding we also hear from young people who have given up hope on the Canadian dream, which is to own their own home, to raise a family here in Canada, to have a good job, to be able to save up some money and, heaven forbid, to be able to fill their car with gas.

What I would say is that help is on its way. Conservatives will keep fighting for affordability and fighting for those families. We are calling on the government today to adopt our motion to end the tax on fuel for this year.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today we are talking about something in our country that should not even have to be debated: whether Canadians deserve a break. People in this country who wake up early, work hard, pay their taxes, raise their kids, care for loved ones, live on fixed incomes or navigate life with a disability do everything the way they are told, and they deserve a break. This is what our motion is about today. It is about cancelling the federal taxes on gas and diesel and scrapping the clean fuel standard that continues to drive up costs across this economy.

Frankly, we all leave this place and talk to our friends, neighbours and constituents, and we hear it in conversations in our offices, in the grocery store lineups and at community events: the reality that life is unaffordable. A couple who both work full-time are wondering how they are going to afford a home. A senior is cutting back on visiting grandkids because the cost of filling the tank is getting to be a bit too much. A single parent is deciding which bill can wait another few days. It is the farmers, truckers, tradespeople and small business owners who are watching their budgets erode month after month while being overtaxed and stretched thinner every day. People are tired. They are doing everything they can, and it still feels like they are falling behind. They are why this motion matters so much.

Over the past few years, Canadians have watched as the price of absolutely everything has gone up: groceries, utilities, rent, mortgage payments, insurance, transportation and everyday necessities. While the government will often talk about how it is saving Canadians money, and even the Prime Minister stood up and said that affordability has not been better in a decade, the reality is that Canadians are looking at their bank accounts and wondering how much more they can stretch.

When we increase the cost of fuel, it increases the cost of everything. It is passed to the consumer. Every single thing Canadians buy becomes more expensive, and yet the government continues to insist that adding more costs somehow makes life more affordable. It does not even make sense. For many Canadians, gas prices are not just a number on a sign that they drive by. They shape almost every financial decision people make during the month.

People feel it when it costs them more to fill the tank. That is money that no longer goes toward groceries, savings, bills or their kids' activities. For families already stretched thin, there is zero room in the budget to absorb these increases. There are people planning errands around fuel usage, driving less to visit family and thinking twice before accepting extra shifts because of the commute. The impact ripples through our entire economy. Everyone pays more.

One of the things I hear most often in my riding is that people no longer feel like hard work gets them ahead. This is devastating to hear in a country like Canada. We have young couples delaying having kids because they cannot afford a home. We have parents worried that their kids will never be able to get a start on their own or build a life for themselves. We have people working overtime, second jobs and side jobs and yet still relying on credit cards just to get by. More and more, we are hearing about households with dual incomes that are barely staying afloat because the cost of living has risen faster than the ability to keep up.

I recently heard from Sayed in my riding who told me that rent, groceries and utilities have become nearly impossible to manage. They said they are under enormous stress to find safe and affordable housing while everyday expenses keep climbing faster and faster, and their income is not keeping pace.

Also, Nathalie shared that they are already behind on rent and struggling to afford basics like food and phone bills at the same time, let alone this gas increase. They told me their bank account balance is at zero. They are beyond negative, and they cannot afford this price increase in gas, and they are terrified of losing their housing altogether.

Adis, a father of five who lives in a two-bedroom apartment with his family, wants to move into a three-bedroom apartment, but the rental prices have become incredibly unaffordable, and year after year, the increases keep pushing them further and further behind.

These are not one-off stories. We are hearing more and more of the same stories across our country from everyday Canadians. Even food insecurity is a national crisis. It is at record highs. There are families with children using food banks, and seniors using food banks. People who never imagined they would need help are now standing in line because they simply cannot keep up. Let us think about that.

In one of the wealthiest countries in the world, people with jobs are struggling to feed themselves. To be a bit nostalgic for a second, only 11 years ago we had the wealthiest middle class in the G7. Look at what has happened with the Liberal government. Those same people are now in food bank lineups.

When fuel prices rise, grocery prices rise. Farmers need fuel to operate their equipment. Truckers need fuel to transport goods. Stores need fuel to supply their chains. These costs do not disappear. They get passed on to the consumer. People drive their kids from Kitchener to Cambridge for sports and activities, and that is putting a strain on families. People drive because they have to. Farmers drive because they have to. Parents drive their kids to school, sports and appointments because they have to. They are not the problem.

When the government increases tax on fuel, Canadians see it at the checkout counter when they buy milk, bread, produce or even diapers. The most frustrating part is that Canadians say they are feeling completely ignored when they try to point out the unaffordability. Disabled people already live below the poverty line, which is a discussion for another day. How can the government keep punishing people financially? There is something so fundamentally unfair about asking Canadians to make it work when so many are already stretched to the breaking point.

The government often talks about supposed rebates, but the majority of Canadians do not see them. All Canadians want is breathing room. They do not want handouts. They just want breathing room and to get ahead. They want to feel like they make responsible choices and can build a decent life for themselves and their families. That should not be too much to ask. Canadians do not feel that things are affordable. They feel stressed when they are walking down the grocery aisle or paying their bills. It is not enough for them to have to cut back on groceries or cancel excursions for their kids. They are still not making ends meet. This is not a choice they should even have to make.

Canadians do not need more talking points. They need relief. This motion offers a very straightforward step toward that relief. The motion would cancel all federal taxes on gas and diesel, scrap the clean fuel standard and stop making everyday life more expensive.

We should never become so disconnected from reality that we forget who we are here to serve. We are here to serve the people who sent us here: the people balancing budgets at the kitchen table, trying to keep their small business alive and skipping meals so their kids can eat first. We have the opportunity to show Canadians that someone is listening to them.

Will the government support our motion and show Canadians that it is listening?

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

Mr. Speaker, Conservative after Conservative has stood up and talked about the issue of affordability. We have brought forward affordability measures, such as the groceries and essentials benefit for Canadians, which is coming out in June. There will be substantial amounts of money for the 11 million Canadians who will benefit by it.

The Prime Minister committed to and got rid of the carbon tax on gasoline. There was the fuel excise tax we took off the price of gas effective April 1 and going to Labour Day weekend. There is the national school food program we have instituted in schools. The Conservatives always vote against these things.

Can the member explain why, if the Conservatives care about affordability, they vote against Liberal initiatives to—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Kitchener Centre.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to address the misinformation in the member's question. We voted in favour of eliminating the tax for everyday Canadians. There actually was no vote to eliminate the carbon tax. It was just done. We did not have the opportunity to vote on that.

I would respectfully ask that if I am going to be asked a question, the question be honest, accurate and true for me to answer.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today once again, we see the Conservatives drawing conclusions.

I just returned from a constituency week. Naturally, people talked to me about inflation, about increasing food bank use and about increasing homelessness. They talked to me about all of that.

However, what we are debating today would not help any of these people. In fact, $2.4 billion was lost as a result of the Liberals' decision to suspend the excise tax until September. This measure only resulted in $59 for the lowest-income households. In the end, that is not what they need. They need more meaningful solutions.

What does my colleague think? Where will that money come from in the end? With today's motion, the Conservative Party wants to increase the deficit without explaining where it will make cuts. Economically, that does not add up.

However, if she wants to talk about other ways to help people in need and increase the income of seniors who are living on the streets, we are willing to discuss that.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would thank my hon. colleague for the question, but I do not think there was one in there.

Let me respond. I agree completely that affordability is an actual crisis right now. We are not saying that this measure is going to fix everything. We are saying that it is a start. It is something that can be done for Canadians to tell them that we are listening to them and that we know they are struggling. It is something we can do.

I will also agree with the statement, though, that the current measure the Liberals have taken is only a half measure. It is not really going to do anything to significantly impact Canadians, their chequebooks and their pockets.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague and friend noted in her speech, the prices of groceries and many everyday essentials are up. There is an impact from gas taxes on that.

Let me ask the question. A year ago in the election, the Prime Minister said that he should be judged on the price of groceries in the grocery aisle. It is now a year and a month later. How is he doing?

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think all Canadians can agree that it is a failing grade.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find this very interesting.

My colleague is a Conservative MP from an urban area. I would like to hear her views on the impact of potentially repealing the clean fuel regulations, which have generated significant revenue for farmers, including those on the Prairies, particularly canola growers. This involves processing that happens in Canada.

Why would we want to take this revenue away from our farmers?

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is not a revenue for the farmers. It is a cost to the farmers that gets passed on to the consumer. Beyond that, I have no other response to the question.

Message from the Senate

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed the following bills to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-5, an act respecting the interoperability of health information technology and to prohibit data blocking by health information technology vendors, and Bill S-214, an act to amend the Special Economic Measures Act with regard to the disposal of foreign state assets.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member forYork—Durham, The Economy; the hon. member for Brandon—Souris, The Economy; the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, The Economy.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Cancellation of Federal Taxes on Gas and Diesel and the Clean Fuel Standard

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to have the opportunity to rise in debate today on the opposition day motion, and I have the great honour of splitting my time with the terrific MP for Vancouver Kingsway.

I want to start by saying that this is a thoughtful motion. I will be voting against it, but I do think it is important to have Canadians use this moment as a teachable moment. There is no question that the price of fossil fuels, particularly gasoline, throughout North America and around the world, has felt the shock created by Donald Trump's and Benjamin Netanyahu's illegally bombing Iran. It had an immediate effect on gas prices around the world. Yes, it is worth Canadians asking, given that has had a global impact, how come gas prices are higher in Canada. As such, I want to dig into that a bit.

I want to state right off the top, and we often fail to say this, even as Greens, but we need to say it, that the cheapest way to move people around in vehicles and the cheapest way to power those vehicles is to move 100% off fossil fuels. I want to say very quickly, before friends anywhere get angry with me, that this is not a useful choice if it is not there for them.

Let me give a contrast. In Germany, pensioners can hang solar panels off their balconies in urban places, and they have the capacity to safely plug their home appliances into the solar panel, just as friends of mine in the Cobble Hill area in British Columbia have solar panels on their roof and plug their car into their house. This means that the source of energy is abundant, renewable and essentially free once everything is in place.

These are larger discussions to have, but the question that I want to focus on now is the one before us from the Conservative Party: Why is there a price differential, even with the international volatility caused by war and mistakes? To say they were mistakes is to be charitable toward the U.S. White House. To say they were monstrously reckless decisions is more accurate.

Why is there this price differential? To get into this, I have to drill down a bit, no pun intended. When the Green Party issued our climate policy in 2019, called “Mission: Possible”, we made the commitment, which I think very few Canadians ever heard of, that we should, as we ramp down on our dependence on fossil fuels in Canada, only use Canadian fossil fuels in this country and absolutely bring imports from other countries to zero.

There is a logic to this, but let us look at the current situation. One of the reasons that fossil fuel prices are higher for Canadians who want to put gas in the tank is that, of the fossil fuels we produce in this country, about 75% of them are exported, and the bulk of that by far, 75% of what we export, or about 60% of total, is exported unprocessed raw. I became more aware of this back in 2016. I was an intervenor in the National Energy Board review of what was then the Kinder Morgan pipeline project, and the largest union representing workers in the oil sands, Unifor, was also intervening against the pipeline project.

Why would the largest union in the oil sands be against the pipeline project? They pointed out the obvious. The pipeline was then idiotically bought and built by Canada at a cost of $36 billion of public funds. However, the pipeline project was then and is now, as it operates, transporting something that is a solid, low-value form of fossil fuel called bitumen, which is diluted with enough fossil fuel condensates that it can flow through a pipeline. Unprocessed raw gets shipped out of Canada to go to refineries in other countries to be upgraded to synthetic crude, and from there it goes to refineries elsewhere.

Focusing on our refinery capacity, in the 1970s, Canada had about 40 refineries. One of the things that the Unifor brief pointed out to the National Energy Board is that we have lost a huge amount of our refinery capacity. It is now down to, in 2026, about 14 to 16 refineries, depending on how one counts. That is down from 40 refineries.

Our capacity to take a domestic product, refine it and use it here has been substantially structurally reduced. Unifor told the National Energy Board that it did not want an export pipeline built because it felt it would inevitably lead to the closure of refineries in the Lower Mainland of B.C. This is because the product that those refineries might want to refine was moving offshore before there was any value added, as is the case whenever we ship out raw materials. We do this a lot in Canada with shippers, hewers of wood and drawers of water. Because we ship out raw logs, the sawmills in Canada cannot operate at full capacity. We ship out raw bitumen, and people could have had jobs in refineries if we had kept up the capacity in our refineries and if we had built upgraders to go with the refineries so that Canadian bitumen could be used in Canadian gas tanks without being shipped out of the country first.

This is a big problem. This affects the price of gas in Canada. We are the fifth largest producer of fossil fuels in the world. We export most of it by far, and we import product from other countries. That is quite astonishing. Why do we do that? Well, I think it is still the mindset of hewers of wood and drawers of water, and because we are failing to listen to smart folks in the refinery business and in the workforces who have been looking at why we do not want to have value added to our refining capacity and be able to say that what we are using in our tanks, as long as we are still using the internal combustion engine, comes from Canada, because this is a Canadian product.

It does make it more expensive, as we can imagine, to ship it out of the port in Burnaby, ship it overseas, and, in some cases, down to refineries in Washington state, only for British Columbians to buy it back from refineries in Washington state. Despite the fact that we have been told some fairy tales over the years, like if we had a pipeline from British Columbia to eastern Canada or from Alberta to New Brunswick, the Irving refinery in New Brunswick could process that and it would be good and we could we use it domestically, the reality is that the Irving refinery is still the only refinery in Canada that imports Saudi oil. The Irving refinery does not have an upgrader to take solid bitumen, turn it into synthetic crude and then refine it.

These are some of the basic structural impediments to Canada getting maximum workforce benefit and maximum domestic economic benefit. We could get more benefit and more jobs in Canada while reducing our overall production of fossil fuels, which we primarily export to the United States. It is still, on the order, about 90% of our exports that go to the United States.

One little curious point people might find amusing as a factoid, but that is rather despairing, is the idea that there was some great benefit coming to Canada by getting our bitumen to tidewater. In fact, a great deal of what gets shipped out of the port of Burnaby towards China, because it is still a solid thing, is a lot like tar. A lot of what we ship to China gets used to pave roads because it is a lot like tar. If we wanted to have a domestic industry that would improve our productivity measurements as an economy, we would not be shipping out raw product. Every time we increase the relative proportion of value-added product before shipping it out of the country, we improve our overall economic indicators.

To that, I will only add that I am concerned about getting rid of the excise tax on our fuel, which we are doing with the spring economic statement, Bill C-30. Stephen Harper's made the wise decision that the excise gas tax would be forever dedicated to public transit in urban areas. The Liberals have now ditched that plan and are giving a short-term, and I think insufficient, tax break to Canadians because it ends on Labour Day.

For all of that, the one sure thing is that nothing is going to hurt our economy like the climate crisis, which is barrelling towards us. Nothing is going to damage our economy as much as the government is currently doing by slashing carbon and climate control programs in order to boost what it thinks will turn into economic growth.

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

Mr. Speaker, I must admit I am a bit surprised by the leader of the Green Party sending possible mixed messages for the first time on the issue, so I would like to get some clarification. When she talks about Canada becoming self-sufficient in terms of oil and gas supply, I am sure she is aware that one of the issues is that Atlantic Canada imports a lot of oil because we do not have the pipeline infrastructure to take the product from the Prairies into Atlantic Canada.

Is she trying to imply that maybe that is something we should be considering? How do we resolve the issue that she has highlighted, in terms of Canada becoming more self-sufficient in consuming the gas we actually produce? To that end, does she also support increasing refining capacity in Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, to the second part of the question, there is no hesitation on my part, because we have, for years, been calling for improving our refinery capacity in Canada. There was a Canadian entrepreneur in British Columbia who wanted to do that to reduce the risk of bitumen on our coastlines. However, let me just point out that eastern Canada has something called Hibernia. The mobile oil platforms there produce a much higher-value crude than bitumen, and it is all shipped to the States.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that my colleague and I are pretty much on the same wavelength when it comes to a number of things.

However, as far as decisions by the government are concerned, we saw that the former Liberal government was steering us toward a green transition. There were investments in the auto industry. Then the government announced that it would be scrapping all of that. Instead, it will start subsidizing the oil industry again, which I believe to be counterproductive and expensive for everyone.

On top of that, the government decided to reimburse all Canadians for the carbon tax they paid in the previous year, except in Quebec. Quebeckers are owed $814 million that the government refuses to repay. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

Quebec is in a rather unusual situation. We invested in the transition to green energy, and now we are being told to forget all that and go back to oil. Not only that, Quebeckers are not getting back the $814 million taken from their pockets to compensate other Canadians. What is my colleague's take on that from an economic perspective?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Liberals' policies lack common sense. There is this belief that it is a good idea to cut and eliminate almost every policy aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, the government is saying yes to electric vehicles. However, at the last minute, the government changes its plans and ends up saying that it does not want them at all. In the end, the government says they may want some. The government also eliminated energy efficiency programs for homes in Canada. It makes no sense.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora—Kiiwetinoong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands' speech. I thought it was very thoughtful. I agree with many of the things she highlighted, one of which was this. If I am not mistaken, I believe she pointed out, quite rightly, that what the Liberals have proposed in terms of removing gas taxes until Labour Day is “insufficient” savings. I believe that was the word the member used. I would agree with that. That is why our Conservative team is bringing forward this motion today to remove all gas taxes for the rest of the year, which would save an average family over $1,200 for the year.

I am sure the member would agree that Canadians are struggling with the cost of living. That being said, she has acknowledged that she will not be supporting this motion. I am curious if she can explain why she will not be supporting this motion, given her comments that what the Liberals have brought forward is insufficient. We are planning to go further to offer Canadians more savings.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do think it is important to remember that, while it is rare that on any climate issue one would invoke Stephen Harper's legacy, the current government's climate policies are so bad that they do bring to mind things that Stephen Harper did better, such as deciding that the gas tax should be permanent and should be used to fund urban transit. I think there is a bit of bait and switch when they say they are going to relieve this tax.

I think what the Liberals are doing is fuelling, no pun intended, the wrong message, as if the narrative is correct that somehow it is the extra taxes from government that are making gas more expensive. It is a factor, but a much larger factor is that we have structured our economy and our use of fossil fuels around shipping out low-value exports and not creating the jobs here.

Part of the Green Party policy, just to make it clear for my friends across the way, is to pick a date on which we will transition off fossil fuels and only use Canadian fossil fuels till that date.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to follow my hon. colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands. I will be picking up some of the same themes she articulated so well.

There are a few things about this motion that I want to agree with and thank my Conservative colleagues for pointing out. First of all, across this country, people are being stretched to the breaking point, and this motion is predicated on that acknowledgement. The cost of essentials, from groceries to rent and energy, continues to soar. Half of Canadians are living paycheque to paycheque. That is a fact I mention often in this place because I think it is profound. I want to emphasize that. Half of Canadians are two paycheques away from economic disaster. One in four parents is cutting back on food or skipping meals to feed their children. This is in a G7 country that my colleagues on the Liberal side of the House call an energy superpower, where 25% of parents cannot get enough food to eat because they are worried about their children.

I also agree very much that Canadians need immediate relief from this affordability crisis. I further agree that after 11 years of Liberal government, at a certain point, we have to ask ourselves who is responsible for the current situation and who is accountable for the policy decisions that have gotten us in this position. They did not just happen. It is not only a cause of external factors, but a result of 11 years of misguided policies and lack of action by the Liberal government on the very basic foundations of affordability, which have caused so many Canadians to be struggling today.

However, I do think that the Conservatives are proposing an ineffective measure that amounts to a corporate giveaway, with no guarantee that any savings will actually reach consumers, which also sets back environmental progress even more than is already the case under the current Liberal government.

Conservatives want Canadians to believe that this is simply about taxes and regulation, but the evidence tells a different story. Gas prices are not set principally by tax levels or even basic supply and demand. They are shaped by global oil markets, financial speculation and the pricing power of a highly concentrated industry. The gasoline that Canadians buy today was refined weeks ago from oil produced months ago, often at much lower costs, yet prices at the pump can rise quickly in response to global events and market expectations, long before any real change in physical supply or production costs occurs.

Canada produces far more oil than we consume. Three-quarters of our production is exported. Of the modest volumes imported into eastern Canada, almost none comes through the Persian Gulf. In other words, there is no energy supply shock in Canada. The cost of producing and refining gas has not changed at all in this country, yet Canadian consumers are being hammered at the pumps. That is because a significant driver of price movement is speculation in global oil markets. The truth is that traders respond to geopolitical developments and anticipated risks by bidding up prices based on expectations of disruption. These financial signals can move prices at the pump even when nothing at all has been changed in the real supply of fuel.

This is also why the Conservatives' call to simply get out of the way and further deregulate the sector would not stabilize prices. In fact, it would do the opposite. It would tie Canadians even more directly to volatile global markets, where speculation and shocks are immediately passed through to consumers, rather than strengthening any insulation from them. Tax cuts and deregulation will never solve this problem. If underlying market prices are being driven up by speculation and price gouging, removing taxes does not stop that dynamic. It simply reduces government revenue while leaving the same pricing system in place. Savings will not be passed on to consumers; rather, they will be absorbed into higher corporate profit margins.

What I have just said is not just theory. We have already seen this approach fail to lower prices for Canadians in real time recently. The Liberal government temporarily suspended the fuel excise tax on April 20 at a cost of approximately $2.4 billion, claiming it would reduce gas prices by 10¢ per litre. Instead, prices have continued to increase while oil and gas giants continue to post record profits.

When the suspension came into effect, the national average gas price was 169.1¢ per litre. Today, the national average price is $1.83 per litre. In Vancouver, where I live, a litre of gas is now routinely over two dollars. The result of the Liberals' removing the excise tax since April 20 is that, so far, prices have gone up. Not a single consumer in Canada has benefited from the Liberal move, and this was predicted by New Democrats at the very time this excise tax reduction was put in place.

This experience demonstrates a key point. When underlying market prices are driven by speculation and price gouging, tax cuts do not reliably translate into lower prices at the pump. That is one of the key flaws of the Conservative motion here today, which seeks to do that even more so.

Instead, the benefit of the reduction in excise tax can be absorbed into higher margins in an already highly profitable sector. I have no doubt that oil companies have already absorbed at least a portion of that 10¢ excise tax reduction. Certainly, there was nothing in the Liberals' measure to stop them from doing that. As I have said already, the proof is in the pudding. Prices have gone up since the Liberals said their measure would take prices down.

While Canadians struggle with affordability, oil and gas giants are positioned to capture massive windfall gains. We are going to see some $90 billion in profits for Canadian oil companies this year. They were slated to make $30 billion in profits this year but are now expecting an additional $60 billion in profits as a result of the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. Yet, Conservatives want to hand these same corporations another tax break with no mechanism that is guaranteed to ensure that consumers benefit, and the Liberals consistently refuse to bring in a windfall profits tax on the oil and gas companies and use those funds to provide real relief to Canadians who desperately need it.

There is no question that Canadians need relief. The real question is this: How do we make sure that relief reaches working people instead of padding corporate balance sheets? Rather than writing a blank cheque to oil giants, the government should look at measures to cap prices at the pump, crack down on profiteering and ensure that savings are actually passed on to consumers.

Other countries, and Canada itself in past moments of crisis, have recognized this basic principle. When extraordinary windfall profits are generated by crisis-driven price spikes, the public has a right to recoup a fair share of those gains rather than allowing them to be fully privatized. They have a right to expect that their governments will protect them from what is called “war profiteering”.

We have done this before. During both world wars, the Canadian government used excess profit measures to ensure that wartime windfalls were redirected toward the public good and the national effort, not captured by private interests. More recently, during the COVID pandemic, the Liberal government itself imposed an excise profits tax on major banks, recognizing that extraordinary gains during a national crisis should not simply remain as private profit. New Democrats believe, respectfully, that the same principle applies today in the oil and gas sector.

I will pause for a moment to say that the motion also calls on the government to permanently scrap the clean fuel standard. That standard requires primary fuel suppliers, refiners and importers to progressively reduce the life cycle carbon intensity of the gasoline and diesel they produce and sell. This measure aims to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30 million tonnes annually by 2030. It encourages fuel providers to innovate, like blending lower-carbon biofuels like ethanol into their products; invest in renewable energy sources; or purchase credits from EV charging providers. This motion would set that back, and New Democrats cannot support that.

Finally, Jack Layton is the person who got the Liberal government to devote one cent of the federal excise gas tax to municipalities, including to provide stable funding for public transit.

New Democrats will continue to work for positive proposals like that, instead of measures that will not help consumers, will hurt the government's ability to innovate and will pad the profits of an oil and gas sector that is already enriching itself at the cost of Canadians.