Debates of May 26th, 2026

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his speech, and I thank him for reiterating that the Bloc Québécois will be voting against this motion. We are on the same page, which is great.

I would also like to thank my colleague for pointing out that, lately, our Conservative friends have often referred to the price of gas in 2014. However, what the Conservative members are saying is factually incorrect. I want to thank my colleague for pointing that out as well.

Now I have a question about the groceries and essentials benefit. Does my colleague not think that this is a well‑targeted benefit? We did not simply change the name of the transfer. We are using the GST credit criteria to target those most in need.

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

Mr. Speaker, yes, this measure is well targeted and it helps people. It is the type of thing we are asking for. What is poorly targeted is the $10 billion invested last year to help oil companies.

I quoted former environment minister Catherine McKenna, who said how much they do not need it and that they are taking advantage of the system.

I have a question. We know that Brookfield has a $16‑billion stake in the pipelines. Were the investments in pipelines deliberately targeted? I am wondering the same thing about the subsidies for small modular reactors that will go to the oil sands, because Brookfield has subsidiaries in that sector. Was that support deliberately targeted?

When we start looking at the big picture of these massive deficits, we see that there are targeted measures to help the less fortunate, but there are also targeted supermeasures for big corporations that seem to benefit Brookfield, a company in which the Prime Minister still owns at least $10 million in shares, as far as we know.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank and congratulate my friend and colleague from Joliette—Manawan.

I am not an economist, but we saw gas prices drop slightly when the fuel excise tax was abolished only to go back up to where they were before. Could it be that oil companies are pocketing extra profits?

We also know that gas prices are rising even though oil from the Strait of Hormuz does not affect us because we get our oil from Canada and the United States. Why are prices rising when our oil is not from sources that have dried up in the Strait of Hormuz?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend for his question.

First, the price of a barrel follows the global price. When there is trouble in Iran, there could potentially be a shortage of oil to the tune of 20%, which drives up prices, including the prices here, even though extraction costs do not go up.

When the excise tax on gasoline was reduced by 10¢, we saw that the price at the pump went down, but then continued to go up because of the price per barrel. Refineries here quickly saw their margins increase by 10¢, fully offsetting the excise tax. This suggests that refineries and oil companies, which seek to maximize their profits, as my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères was saying, saw a window of opportunity there. When the government pulled back, they thought they could charge a higher price and occupy that space. Is that the solution? That is what the Liberals did, and that is what the Conservatives are telling us to do even more.

In the end, this mainly helps the oil companies, which are making huge profits. That is not the solution.

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech and congratulate him. I really enjoy working with him.

The economic statement refers to the electrification strategy and the strategy to protect nature. We are maintaining our international investments. We are also investing in clean infrastructure.

Does my colleague agree with those investments?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is also a pleasure to work with the parliamentary secretary, particularly on social housing issues.

Do I agree with those investments? They are important, but the government is also taking steps backwards. For example, there is $5 billion less for public transit, and we have other similar concerns. The government is taking several steps backwards, while still providing a lot of assistance to oil companies.

The fact that the former environment minister is saying that the current government's environmental policies, especially its support for oil companies, are worse than those under the Harper government is a big deal, and analysts are saying that he is absolutely right. In my opinion, the evidence is clear.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Essex, who has been a breath of fresh air since he came to this House. He has done a great job. He represents the people of his riding. I have been to his riding and met first-hand all the wonderful people in that area. I want them to know they have a great member. I look forward to working with him for years to come.

In Saskatchewan right now, it is spring seeding time. It is a tough time right now, because seeding is about three weeks later than it should be. People are stressed. They are burning the midnight oil, or burning the candle at both ends, one might say, to get the crop in because of the timely nature of the crops they are planting.

I want to mention this in the little time I have. To farmer friends in my riding, across Saskatchewan and across Canada, slow down, take a breath, relax and be safe out there. To those who are working in agricultural districts or driving down those roads, remember that those farmers are working really hard and they are have time constraints. Give them space on the road. If people see a tractor coming down the road, they should slow down and let them go by. If they see a sprayer, slow down and let them go by. Let them do their business, because it is so crucial right now, in this next week or two, that they get the crop in as quickly as they can.

Trust me when I say these are stressful conditions. Farmers are wet and they are frustrated. I have been there and done that. I have been up to my knees and up to my waist, and I know what it is like to pull a tractor out. I never got the tractor stuck. That was always my dad. I will say that, or at least that is what I will admit to.

Talking about stress leads to what we are talking about today. Canadians are stressed. They are financially stressed. They are feeling the impact of costs going up. They are feeling the impact of their wages just not keeping up with what they have to pay per week or per month for the standard cost of living. We are not talking about surplus things or things that are just a benefit. I am talking about the day-to-day requirements to actually feed a family or put clothes on kids and get them off to school. Those are the types of costs that Canadians are struggling with. In a lot of cases, people are maxing out their credit cards. They are looking at ways to save money, but there is just nothing left to cut.

That is where we, as a government, can play a role. That is one of the proposals we have made today. It is a simple solution that could immediately be implemented, and its impact could be felt immediately, without a huge bureaucracy being created and without a whole pile of spending on administrating and trying to create new programs. It is a very simple choice, which is to remove the fuel tax on diesel and gas. Instantaneously, that would provide relief at the pumps.

It would not only provide relief for the family, but provide relief for the guys who are hauling the food to the warehouse or from the warehouse to the grocery store. It would provide a domino effect of relief through all sectors here in Canada that would make life just that much easier. Hopefully, those costs would trickle down to the consumer and make life just a little easier for that consumer, that Canadian citizen, to make ends meet.

We proposed very simple measures. Get rid of the federal tax on gas and diesel, including the GST, and then permanently scrap the clean fuel standard. I am going to talk about the clean fuel standard right now.

What is frustrating with this tax is that it is a tax. No matter how the Liberals want to bury it, it is a tax and it is a cost that will get through the supply chain to the end consumer. It always does. Those costs are always passed up the chain, and they will probably be passed up with a multiplier effect as margins are added to them all the way through. They end up in the consumer's back pocket, and those costs are hurting it.

This tax also makes our manufacturers, suppliers and international traders uncompetitive in the global marketplace. What do I mean by that? The reality is that these are costs Canadian manufacturers and Canadian producers face, but their competitors around the world do not. These are costs that they have to embed into their pricing as they try to recover the costs and sell abroad that their competition does not have to. Automatically, they have one hand tied behind their back, yet we are telling them to diversify trade, take on new markets and find new ways of doing things.

What do we do? We battle. We are basically putting more costs into the situation they are facing. It just does not make sense.

We want to improve Canada's ability to market and sell around the world, which I agree with. I think those are good, honourable things to do. I have been pro-free trade all my life. Coming from the agriculture sector in Saskatchewan, we trade and we sell stuff around the world. We sell to clients in China, South America, North Africa and Europe. We are doing business around the world all the time. We are competing with Brazilians, Australians and Americans. We are competing with people around the world who do not have those restraints and those embedded costs. It actually makes it tougher for us to compete.

However, we are very creative in Canada. Our farmers are the best in the world. They are quick adopters of new technology. They are very astute and they are competing. They can compete, even though they have had one hand tied behind their back so many times over the last few years. All we are saying is to take the hand from behind their backs and put them on a level playing field. That is what we are saying here by removing the clean fuel standard. It is not just farmers, but manufacturers and the whole Canadian economy that could find more relief and a greater ability to compete internationally by having this removed from their cost platform.

I want to circle back to families and the stresses they are facing. I go to events. We held passport clinics in the riding a few weeks back, I sat down at the table and talked to people who were coming in to get passports for their kids. They may travel over the next five or six years. When I held these clinics over the last two or three years, people were talking about a trip they were going to take the next year or the year after. When I talk to them now, they say, “We want to get our passport because it is convenient and it is easy, and thanks for offering the service, but I do not know if we will ever use it because I just cannot afford to travel. I just cannot afford to take on any luxuries like travel, but I want to have my passport.”

When we drive down and ask how they are doing, what is going on in their family and how their babies are, I hear a little softening in their tone and see them biting on their lip or a tear in their eye. They say, “It is tough. We had to make the choice this year between letting our kids play baseball or play golf. We had to make the choice this year of whether we are going to put our kids in swimming lessons. We looked at the cost and we just cannot afford it.” They want to make sure that their kids have all of the opportunities to play different sports and experience what they all grew up with, but they say, “I do not know if we can afford it. I do not know if we can do it.”

I was talking to one guy. He said, “I have three jobs because I want my kids to play hockey. I want them to experience hockey, but that means I have three jobs.” His wife is also working in that family of four. Two parents are working just so their kids can play hockey. Something is wrong with this equation.

Looking back, what has happened? What is wrong? It is 10 years of bad policy. It has been 10 years of ignoring what really needs to be done through policy to make sure that Canadians can thrive, grow, experience the benefits of being a Canadian citizen and have the “top of the world” lifestyle that we became accustomed to in the years before the last 10 years of the Liberal government. These are the things that people are looking at, and they are saying, “It never used to be this way. Why is it now?”

Let us look at it. We drove away industry. We brought in policies that no other country in the world has. We have done it all under the guise of being for the environment. I think a lot of people would agree that it is important to take care of our environment, and I agree with that. Canadians would agree with that, but they did not need to be the Boy Scouts of it. They did not need to be the ones doing it all by themselves. Keep in mind that we produce 2% of global emissions, yet we thought we were taking on the world and we are trying to find a way to solve 100% of global emissions. We cannot do it by ourselves, but the government is asking our businesses and our families to pay for all of this with really no benefit at the end of the day to actually make a change in the environment.

Going back to these families, they are struggling. They are looking for a way to make ends meet. They want to give their kids a good quality of life. They want to see some hope and a light at the end of the tunnel. They want to see that they are through this rough patch and this structural change that is going on in the U.S. and things like that, and that there is a light at the end of the tunnel. However, from the current government, there has been no policy, really, that has impacted people's day-to-day functions.

The Liberals talk about different subsidy programs that they put in place, and they all sound good, but at the end of the day, they are not hitting the mark. They are not actually helping Canadian families. With respect to this policy and these changes, if we were to implement them tomorrow, the impact would be felt immediately. At least families would know right out to the end of the year that for the summer season and going into the fall, they would have some relief. They would know that as the economy picks up and as their job and everything else stabilize, they would be good.

That is why this common-sense Conservative approach is something the Liberals should steal. They are good at stealing good Conservative policies. Why not steal this one? Canadians would benefit from it.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. The Conservatives want the government to take some specific actions, yet when we take actions to support the issue of affordability, the Conservatives vote against them.

Let me give a good example. I hope the member can relate to a problem that has been around for generations. When I was first elected in 1988, people were talking about children not being able to learn on empty stomachs. This Prime Minister and this government have made a permanent national food program for our schools.

Does the member see it as a positive thing, on the issue of affordability, that young children have meals while they are at school?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I know the sincerity of the hon. member's heart. His approach to it is one way of approaching it. Is it the right way? Is it the most efficient way? That is where we would differ.

The need is there. There is no question about it. However, I would like to make sure that families have good jobs, high-paying jobs, so they do not have to go to the federal government for a food program. I would like to make sure that they keep that money in their back pocket, so that they can spend it as they choose. That is the difference between the Conservative approach and the Liberal approach. Liberals would like to create a new bureaucracy, and they would like to dole out the money as they see fit. No, people should keep their money, so they can spend it as they see fit. They worked hard to earn it.

While we understand that the issues are there, there are different ways of approaching it. Our way makes more sense. That is why we should do it the Conservative way.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer found that cutting taxes on fuel, such as the excise tax, mainly benefits the wealthiest Canadians, who use more gas. Over time, oil companies tend to raise their prices to increase their profit margins.

What does my colleague think about that?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I understand where the member is coming from. Actually, it depends on the demographics. If someone is in rural Saskatchewan, they are not wealthy, by any means. They are a hard-working family with a middle-class income. Reducing fuel costs for them makes a difference. They do drive. If they are going for groceries, they are driving 50 kilometres one way. That is the reality in Saskatchewan. It may be different in Quebec. I do understand that maybe there are different requirements in Quebec, as there are for a lot of other things for which Quebec has different requirements than the rest of Canada. I acknowledge that.

Here is something very simple for rural people in rural Canada that would benefit them immediately. It would. For somebody in downtown Toronto or downtown Montreal who takes the bus to work, maybe the benefit is not there. Maybe they need something different. If we could let people keep more of their money, or, in this situation, if we get rid of the clean fuel standard so that the cost of what they are buying is cheaper, then they will feel that benefit.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is just such an honour to serve the amazing, hard-working residents of Essex who have put their trust in me to be their voice in this very uncertain time.

As I always say, I will continue to give all praise to my Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. Without Him, nothing is possible.

I want to say thanks so much to the amazing member for Prince Albert for his passion and his compassion for the residents of his area. I have not been able to visit his riding yet, although I hope to one day, but I have seen his work in action when he has come down to my riding. I want to thank him so much for his vision, his leadership and, quite frankly, his mentorship for myself.

It is not often that many of us have a whole bunch of friends, but a very dear friend of mine is going through an awful tough time right now. Her name is Fran Rankin. I just want to ensure that Fran Rankin's name is put on record in the Hansard. She is the most lovely wife to one of my other best friends, Mark Rankin. I just want her to know that we love her, Essex loves her, and we are bringing all our passion and support for her.

I will get into the business of the day. Really, what I am speaking about today is what I think about when I look at my children, who are 26, 25 and 23. I also have a grandchild, Levi, who just turned five. I think about the future we are leaving them. What legacy are we leaving for future generations? I always go back to this. I believe they just, quite frankly, do not have the same opportunity that we had growing up.

I bought my first house for $149,900 and had zero clue how I was going to pay for it. It was a brand new house with a finished concrete driveway. I thought, how in the world is this even possible? That was some 25 years ago. Unfortunately, what I am hearing now is more of, “Why even bother anymore? I just can't get ahead.” That is wildly sad.

I rise today to address a glaring disconnect between the government's rhetoric and the lived reality of Canadians. While the Liberal government has prioritized the word “affordable”, over four dozen times in budget 2025, for the people I represent, that word is losing its meaning. “Affordable” and “affordability” are good words, but they have begun to ring hollow for families because they lack concrete action. As a man of my word, I am urging the government to make good on its word and ensure that affordability actually translates into relief that Canadians can feel.

I know the government has claimed that it has acted faster and more comprehensively than our global peer countries in response to the increased price in gas, but in Essex, “faster” is not how we describe the rise in the cost of living, and “comprehensive” is not how we describe a tax relief plan that ignores the reality at the pump. I know the government has offered to cut taxes on fuel, which, by the way, affects only a third of the taxes on gas for a third of the year. While the Prime Minister has said that affordability is better now than it has been in recent years, the families in my riding are telling a different story.

Today, I am here to provide a reality check for the government and paint a picture of what affordability would actually look like for Essex residents by telling this House a few stories from real, everyday people who have written to me this year asking for help.

Consider a female auto worker in our region who writes, “As a person living in Kingsville, who commutes to Windsor five, sometimes even six times a week for work, I am asking you to help make life more affordable for your fellow Canadians. The price of gas is at an all-time high, and [the Prime Minister] is blind to what Canadians are currently going through: the lack of affordability and the cost of living crisis.” She is not asking for more rhetoric. She said, “I am reaching out to you today to ask that you help remove the tax on gas.” Further, in Belle River, the frustration is tied to our energy independence: “We need help with gas prices, especially when our gas doesn't come from the Middle East.”

These are not isolated complaints. They are cries for help from a region under immense pressure. When gas prices soar, they act as a tax on every single sector in our economy. As one father in Essex noted, “To the untrained eye there seems to be very little action to control the gas prices we are currently seeing and the resulting increase in the price of everything else a family needs to live. In my family, we have three jobs just to make ends meet. Why is the government not being more proactive in helping the current situation be more manageable for the hard-working middle- and lower-class families?”

In Amherstburg, that anxiety is turning into fear: “gas prices [are] currently getting to a level that is placing a significant financial burden on families.... For many of us in Essex County, driving is a necessity for work, school, and daily life. My fear is that...these prices will continue to rise, and start affecting other commodities such as food and other necessities.”

My constituents are right to be afraid. In Windsor-Essex, where our manufacturing and tool and die sectors are already facing an existential threat from foreign tariffs, high fuel costs are a weight they cannot carry. At the end of the day, the price at the pumps directly correlates with the cost of shipping food, homebuilding and the food that families can afford on the table. Affordability is not just a word for Essex residents. It is something they desperately need.

This is why we are calling on the House to end all federal taxes on gas and diesel for the rest of the year, including the GST, and permanently scrap the clean fuel standard. We must answer this Essex father's question: “Why is the government not being more proactive in helping the current situation be more manageable for the hard-working middle- and lower-class families?”

The government cannot claim that it lacks resources. It pocketed $8 billion in revenue windfall from high global oil prices, roughly $2 billion for every $10 increase on the price of a barrel, yet the response has been nothing shy of chump change. While the Liberals claim that affordability is better than it has been in years, their recent tax cut saved only 10¢ per litre on gas and four cents per litre on diesel. In contrast, the Conservative motion to cut costs at the pump by 25¢ per litre and save a family of four $1,218 per year is a common-sense solution. I know that because Australia, Spain, Ireland, Italy, Germany and Austria, to name a few countries, have already moved to cut fuel taxes or provide direct relief at the pump. Even our neighbours to the south have a competitive advantage because of these taxes. Canadians pay nearly 20% more for fuel than Americans: 20¢ more.

The burden on diesel, the fuel that powers our farmers and our supply chains, is even more nonsensical. As a resident in Amherstburg asked, “How is it possible that we are allowing the oil industry to charge more for diesel than for gasoline fuel?” The answer is clear. Diesel is more expensive because the Liberals have added more tax on diesel: a 10¢ federal excise tax, eight cents of GST and a seven-cent clean fuel standard. One Essex resident wrote me, “If diesel fuel comes down in cost, the transportation of goods will be less, which in effect should lower the cost of goods available for sale.” I could not agree more.

The government needs to exit its utopian world, where we just jet-set around the world and have conversations and photo ops, and instead look at what is happening on Canadian soil.

In closing, I am asking the government to let the middle class succeed by cutting all federal taxes on gas and diesel for the rest of the year, including the GST, and permanently scrap the clean fuel standard. Is it too much to ask? The Liberals have already profited $8 billion from windfall tax revenues. What we are proposing will save a family of four $1,218. As the member of Parliament for Essex, I am asking the House to listen to the voices of Essex residents and hear their struggles. They are hopeful, but they cannot hold the line forever.

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

Mr. Speaker, I understand the situation very well. In my riding also, folks talk to us all the time about the high prices of gasoline and about the high cost of living. Everybody is worried about that. Also, folks do understand that the current high prices of gasoline come from the very sudden increase in crude oil prices, which is totally out of the government's control. By the way, oil is a global commodity, so global oil prices affect everybody, including the United States.

Does my colleague not think that an across-the-board reduction in gasoline taxes would benefit folks at the higher end of the income scale more than people—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Essex has the floor.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question was very respectful. I believe all 343 members of Parliament can probably point to local stories in their own ridings about the cost of everything these days.

One of my favourite things I love to do is spend time with my sons and, when their buddies come over after a day of fishing or perhaps a day of hunting, listen to their stories. They are not talking about people who are overly privileged. They are talking about their own lives today and the very fact that they cannot afford to go somewhere or cannot afford to do something. They just want an opportunity going forward. I appreciate the question, but quite frankly, it affects all of us.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on that question. It is a little absurd for the Liberals to come in here today and say that repealing the clean fuel standard would just benefit the rich and that the people at the bottom of the income scale would benefit the least from it.

I remember not very long ago putting $20 into my gas tank and it used to get me through a week. This is when I was working prior to getting married, when I was dating my wife. Being able to put $20 in my vehicle meant a lot, because it was able to get me a long ways. Now $20 gets us nowhere. Being able to put $20 in their gas tank feels like a luxury for a lot of people right now. For a lot of people, that is a necessity, not a luxury.

Would the member agree that people at the bottom end of the income scale actually stand to benefit the most, because when they only have $20 to put in their gas tank, it will actually get them somewhere?

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member gets it. He really understands exactly what people are facing. I would suggest that the $20 he is speaking about should be $40, because the price of food at the grocery store has been affected because there is so much tax on fuel. People need the extra $20 to maybe buy some food that would not cost the same as the food we bought perhaps three, four or five years ago. Yes, I completely agree with the member, and I appreciate the fact that he truthfully understands what the issue is.

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

Mr. Speaker, not so long ago, the Liberals added $2.4 billion to the deficit by temporarily suspending the excise tax. Today, the Conservatives are saying we should pile another $5 billion on the deficit with the new measures in their motion.

Could they explain why they claim they want to tackle the deficit but are suggesting measures that will actually benefit oil companies rather than ordinary people and will swell the deficit?

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the hon. member. I do have to smile a little, because at the end of the day, I cannot go back in good faith to the residents of Essex, look them in the eye and say that we are actually putting more taxes on them because it is the right thing to do. I cannot do that. None of us can do that.

What we need to do is come up with common-sense solutions, such as the very one being proposed today, to ensure that future generations have the same opportunity going forward as each and every one of us to hopefully leave the world a better place than we found it. That is our job, that is why we are here and that is why we bring up these very strong suggestions.

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

Mr. Speaker, it has been an interesting debate thus far, so I thought I would contribute by maybe bringing a sense of reality to the situation and take more of a holistic approach to what is taking place.

We all have a responsibility to stay in tune with our constituents. There is no doubt there is concern about affordability. There is concern about the economy. People are concerned about trade and tariff issues. There are concerns with regard to social programs, whether it is dealing with issues of health care, stabilizing the immigration issue or dental care programs. There is a much larger picture that needs to be taken into consideration when we debate the motion the Conservative Party has put forward. I would also suggest there is a need for us to look at the manner in which the far right is expressing itself today. I want to address those types of issues in my comments.

I posed a question to the member for Prince Albert. There are two issues I would like to reflect on with regard to that particular question. I asked the member for Prince Albert about the national food program. This government and the Prime Minister made a very clear statement saying we are going to make a national food program permanent in our schools across this country, in every region. Over 400,000 children will directly benefit from that program.

I further commented to the member for Prince Albert saying that for generations there have been issues surrounding children not having food when they go to school. I know that first-hand because I have witnessed it in Manitoba. I can recall former leader Sharon Carstairs talking about it in the Manitoba legislature and outside the legislature. To deny that is to deny the reality of what is taking place in the communities we represent. It even goes beyond the issue of affordability. Not every child goes to school with a full tummy that would enable them to digest the education or what the teachers are saying in the classroom. Having a permanent national food program would help deal with not only the issue of affordability, but also a social issue that is real and very tangible.

When I put the question to the member for Prince Albert, his response was that, in essence, that is the difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals. The Conservatives say, no, we do not need a program like that. Other members of the Conservative Party have denied that it has even helped any children. Another member of the Conservative Party said it is a garbage program. These are the types of responses we get on an important national issue in every region of our nation. The issue of affordability is an important aspect, especially at this time. The member for Prince Albert went on to say that we do not need that. Families can take the responsibility of feeding their own family members. There is a great deal of merit in arguing that family members do provide for family members, but to make that blanket statement about all 400,000-plus children does a disservice to what is a good, sound public policy.

Let us carry it over to groceries. We have the groceries and essentials benefit. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance had a press conference announcing a program that I believe is going to be there into the future to assist middle- and low-income individuals with the affordability of groceries. I asked Conservative members if they would support that program and the response has been, in essence, no.

Let us take a look at how that program, much like the GST did in the past, supported individuals who needed the support the most. The program is very much targeted. Over 10 million Canadians are going to benefit from the implementation of that program, which is going to be taking effect at the beginning of June. Again, we have to look at the contrast. The Conservatives like the flash and the extreme statements. I would like to give an example of both on this issue.

One of my colleagues shared ChatGPT with me and I have been able to use it over the last little while. I took a look at some of the false claims the Conservatives make. I believe the motion says we pay 13% more for gas than the Americans do. I can say to the members opposite that I am not too sure where they get these numbers from, but it is an example of an extreme statement and it is what the far right likes to do. They like to say something even if it is not true.

Let me give members a tangible example. California has 39 million people. Canada has 40 million people. I did a bit of research. It was not much, but I did do some on this issue. I found that a U.S.A. gallon equals about 3.785 litres. In California, it costs $6.10 a gallon, which equates to $1.61 a litre. That is in U.S. dollars. Let us say someone wants to fill up their tank in California. They will find that, after they apply the conversion, it is going to cost $111.13 to put in 50 litres of gas.

I most often get my gas on Salter Avenue in the north end of Winnipeg at gas station 204. It is a great gas station. It consistently has some of the best prices, if not the best price in Winnipeg when it comes to gas. I believe I paid less than $1.60 over the weekend. I quickly called them. I asked, “What are you charging today for a litre of gas?” He said they cannot necessarily convey it over the telephone. I said that I believed it was $1.55 or something like that recently. It was less than that. I do not know for a fact, but members can try to phone them. It is the 204 gas company on Salter, just south of Selkirk Avenue.

Therefore, 50 litres of gas at that price would be $77.50. How does that price compare? The motion says we are paying 13% more than Americans. The Conservatives are telling my constituents that they are paying 13% more for gas than the Americans. The simple math tells me 50 litres of gas in California is going to cost my constituents $111, compared to getting it for $77.50. The point is we just cannot trust the Conservatives.

If we look at the average price of gas in the United States we would find, at least based on the example in my experience of the last few days, that it is nowhere near what the Conservatives are purporting it to be today, but that does not stop them, because a part of their strategy, the far-right strategy, is to try to get the population angry.

The government understands the important issue of affordability. Why, do members think, did we decrease the excise tax on gas? We recognize what is taking place in the Middle East, and it is having an impact that can be hard on the pocketbook of Canadians. That is why we delivered on the 10¢ tax break for gasoline.

Let me give members a couple of quotes with respect to how the Conservative Party has moved to the right, and members can guess who might have said them.

The first one is this: “There would be mass hunger and malnutrition with a tax this high.” I will let members guess who said that. It is from an address to the Conservative caucus. The next is from the same person, but in a different room, on the floor of the House of Commons: “extreme bloodshed and violence that Liberals have unleashed is what is radical.” These two quotes, one from the Conservative caucus and the other from the floor of the House of Commons, come from the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. Let us talk about extreme.

Yesterday we heard from the member for Oxford. It is amazing how the Conservatives say this stuff. He said, “seniors are now starving to death.” Seriously, do members think there are people who believe the Conservative right today, with the degree to which the Conservatives have gone so far to the right?

It makes one wonder, because the member for Oxford is not alone. There have been other extreme statements made by the Conservatives. That is no surprise if we listen to what the leader of the Conservative Party said in their caucus and on the floor of the House. We wonder why. It is more about trying to get Canadians angry.

Yesterday in the House I was talking about how members of the Conservative Party go around Canada telling Canadians that Canada is broken, and how they try to justify that by throwing all sorts of numbers at them. However, I believe that if we were to canvass a vast majority of Canadians, we would find a sense of pride, a sense of wanting to collaborate, and at the very least the recognition that Canada is, from my perspective and I would argue that of most people, the best country in the world to call home, but we would never know that when listening to the Conservatives. This comes straight from the far-right leadership of the Conservative Party today.

I look at that and compare it to the types of questions I have put forward. I have had the opportunity to ask questions. There is a substantial difference between the policy measures that come from the Conservatives and those that come from the government of the day. The Conservatives are trying to divide. They are trying their hardest to anger the population, especially the far right. Is it any wonder there has been such a rise of, in a word, hatred, to a certain degree, toward politicians in general, because of things such as misinformation, gross exaggeration and things that are just not real?

Mr. Speaker, do you really believe that there are seniors starving to death in Canada today? We understand and appreciate the issue of affordability. That is why, unlike what the Conservatives are proposing, we have adopted a holistic approach to building a stronger, healthier economy, while at the same time being there and delivering for Canadians on the issue of affordability. This is not just something that we decided in the last day, 24 hours, or in the last week or month. This has been a commitment from our Prime Minister since day one. The issue of affordability and making life easier for Canadians has been there, top of mind, for the current government, and in particular for the Prime Minister, from day one.

Just over a year ago, the first action taken by the Prime Minister reduced the price of gas substantially. It was the elimination of the carbon tax, and the government does see that as a positive initiative that made life more affordable for Canadians. We understood, as a new government with a new Prime Minister, how important it was to take that action, and it was the very first action by the Prime Minister.

There was another action within weeks of being back in session, prior to last summer. We made a substantial tax break for Canada's middle class.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, some Conservatives may try to belittle it, but 22 million Canadians benefited from that action. Mr. Speaker, you know, as I know, that this is the full truth. The member opposite should know it, because we debated the issue and forced the issue through prior to summer 2025. From it, 22 million Canadians benefited.

We have eliminated the GST for first-time homebuyers. This is a substantial break for people who are trying to purchase a home for the first time. We have extended and enhanced things such as the Canada child benefit, a program that serves millions of Canadians, upwards of around six million or so, I believe. We have reinforced the importance of things such as the Canadian dental program and pharmacare for diabetes, and some other measures, making sure that we are protecting, where we can, those social services.

There are actions the government has taken, such as what I referenced at the very beginning: the grocery and essentials benefit program. I thought that program would receive unanimous support from the House of Commons. The money is going out in June. It deals with the affordability issue in part, just as the excise tax taken off gas until Labour Day by the government does.

We have to put this in the context of what is taking place in the Middle East. There is an energy crisis. The Prime Minister, the government and, in fact, the entire Liberal caucus recognize that and the importance of the issue of affordability, and we are there to have the backs of Canadians.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Tolstoy said, “Truth, like gold, is to be obtained not by its growth, but by washing away from it all that is not gold.” Let us wash away everything that is not gold from the member's speech and look at the truth. Well, that is right, we washed away, and there is nothing. We have sat and listened to a master class of 20 minutes of disinformation from the Liberal government.

I will be upfront here. We tease back and forth with the member for Winnipeg North all the time, and I quite enjoy jousting with him, quite good-naturedly. However, I have to say I am disappointed by some of his terms in accusing us of being far right. I will comment on a few of his claims.

The member goes on at length about the school food program for 400,000 children. However, there are 5.4 million children who are not covered by it. On the grocery rebate, when we actually include two working parents at minimum wage, they do not qualify. The government spent years claiming that the carbon tax was not inflationary. Why does the member now, after so many times saying the gas tax was not inflationary—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to give the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader a chance to respond.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my friend opposite has to stop drinking the right-wing Kool-Aid. I can assure people who are listening that everything I have said is factual and that I can support it.

The issue with the national food program, as the member said, is that it is targeted at young children and not at every child who goes to school. I will concede that, but the Conservative Party does not even recognize the value of it or of any other program that is there to support Canadians on the affordability front.

I am still waiting for Conservatives to stand up and say, “You know what? The groceries and essentials benefit program is good for Canadians. It will help in terms of the issue of affordability.” Just one Conservative should stand up. It might be a little offside with the leader of the Conservative Party, but they can stand up and recognize it as a program that is going to help their constituents on the issue of affordability. It is not much to ask for. Hopefully there is one Conservative who will recognize a good program when it hits them in face.