Debates of May 26th, 2026

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

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this ultimately comes down to priorities. The government has become far too comfortable with collecting more money every time gas prices rise while pretending that higher costs are somehow beyond their control.

However, Canadians do not have the luxury of pretending. They feel these costs every day when they buy groceries, commute to work, heat their homes or run a small business. Despite all the speeches and headlines, the Liberals are still refusing to take the simple steps that would provide immediate relief, which would be to remove all federal taxes on gas and diesel and to scrap the costly clean fuel standard.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we just came back from two weeks in our constituencies, where we had the opportunity to meet with the people we represent. In my riding of Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, I heard story after story of families and small businesses that are struggling.

I wonder if the member could share with us what she heard in her riding at the other end of the country. I represent a riding in Ontario; she represents one in British Columbia. I wonder if she would share with us the types of things she was hearing. Perhaps it was different than what I was hearing in my riding.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the very same things in my riding. I also heard that, at the end of the day, Canadians are looking for common sense, not political theatre.

The Liberals have created a system where rising gas prices benefit government revenues because every increase at the pump means more tax revenue flowing to Ottawa. Meanwhile, ordinary Canadians absorb the consequences as higher fuel costs ripple through the entire economy, making food, transportation and everyday life more expensive. There is nothing stopping the government from delivering meaningful relief except its own unwillingness to give up the revenue.

Canadians deserve more than symbolic gestures and temporary announcements.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I ask my question, there is something that the members opposite have been saying over and over again, which is that, in 2014, oil prices were what they are now and gasoline prices were much lower. That is just not correct. It is factually incorrect. Perhaps they should stop saying that.

Oil prices started 2014 at $100 a barrel, and they closed the year at $57. That was the year of shale oil in the U.S. There were massive oil inventories, and that is why gasoline prices came way down. It is not the taxes. Come on.

My question is about support for families.

Does my colleague think assistance to families should be targeted, or should it be generalized so that rich people get the same relief as poor people?

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the point is that the government acted too little, too late and only temporarily.

The Liberal plan provides a fraction of the relief that Canadians need, and it is for only part of the year, while the other federal costs remain layered on energy. Even according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the average household will only save $124. That may help a little, but it is not serious relief for families facing high gas, grocery, rent and mortgage costs. Canadians need meaningful savings at the pump, not a temporary announcement designed to make the government look like it solved the problem.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Finance and National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and set the record straight. We have heard a lot of things this morning, but I believe that folks listening at home want the facts. They know we are facing the biggest energy crisis in decades, according to the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

I am therefore very pleased to take part in today's debate on an issue that affects all Canadians. We are well aware that affordability is the number one concern of Canadians. We are talking about the cost of housing, the cost of groceries and, of course, the cost of gas. I also want to say that Canada is not immune to the global situation. In fact, we discussed this very issue with our G7 colleagues when we met last week.

Canada is proving itself to be a leader in affordability. Canada has taken targeted measures that will help families and Canadians across the country. I would even go so far as to say that, in international discussions, people often view Canada as a country that has used its fiscal capacity wisely to help families and households in their time of need.

The rapidly changing global environment is creating uncertainty for businesses, workers and families. People are saying that there is a fog of uncertainty shrouding the planet right now, and I would say that Canada, in such a context, is in a position to take concrete action to help people and certainly to help businesses, workers and households.

Faced with this situation, the government is focusing on what it can control, which is to build a stronger economy to lower the cost of living for Canadians and to build the strongest and most resilient economy in the G7. We are particularly mindful of the pressures caused by rising gas prices in a global environment marked by significant geopolitical tensions. As I said, Canadians fully understand the geopolitical situation facing countries around the world.

That is exactly why we acted. There have been a lot of speeches this morning, but what Canadians want to see is action, and that is what our government has been delivering.

The International Energy Agency has called this the most severe energy crisis in history. That is the backdrop that we are all facing. It is the largest energy crisis in history. In fact, that is why the measures we have taken in affordable housing, groceries and suspending the federal excise tax on fuel are making a difference in the lives of Canadians.

Last month, I joined the Prime Minister here in Ottawa to introduce a temporary suspension of the federal fuel excise tax on gasoline, diesel and aviation fuels. Since April 20 and until Labour Day, we are ensuring Canadians will not have to pay the fuel excise tax at the pumps. For us, this was a priority to help Canadians and businesses manage these global pressures. This is expected to reduce Canadians' bill at the gas station by 10¢ per litre on regular gasoline and 4¢ on diesel. This represents almost $6 when filling a typical 50-litre tank of fuel. That is meaningful support for Canadians and consumers.

This measure will also help reduce operating costs for businesses in the food, agriculture, housing, construction and trucking sectors, because we know that, with lower costs and greater financial strength, businesses can hire more workers and confidently build and export more products to global markets. It would also help Canadian families save on their transportation costs as they set out to explore our beautiful country this summer. The suspension is estimated to provide relief of over $2.4 billion in 2026 and 2027.

I just want to remind my colleague who was talking about additional revenues that, as I outlined in the spring economic update, two-thirds of the additional revenues that we have received have been used to support Canadian families at a time of need. This is just one of several measures we have put forward to alleviate the pressure of the higher cost of fuel on Canadian households and budgets.

I expect that my Conservative colleagues who are here this morning will support Bill C-30 because it is a bill that would actually put in motion what we have just discussed this morning. It is good to ask questions, and it is good to make speeches, but it is even better to vote in favour of a bill that would make a difference in the lives of Canadians. I can see in their eyes and in their smiles that they intend to vote, and we are going to look for that. Their constituents are going to be watching to see if they vote for support that would reduce fuel costs.

Right after taking office, the Prime Minister cancelled the federal consumer fuel charge, effective April 1, 2025, in a move that directly helped Canadians save money at the pump. We have taken a suite of measures to reduce the price of fuel across the country. Our government also removed the requirement for provinces and territories to have a consumer-facing carbon price as of that date. These actions helped reduce gas prices in most provinces and territories by about 18¢ per litre in comparison to 2024‑25. Our measures have been targeted and are effective. If we compare the measures that Canada has been taking among the G7, we will see that they are very targeted. They have been very effective, and a number of countries are looking for the leadership of Canada, in terms of the measures that will help Canadians.

For many Canadians, the cost of groceries and basic necessities remains a constant concern. We know that, because that is what we are hearing right across the country. That is why we decided to take action. We did not wait; we decided to take action to support families.

We are all aware that the pandemic caused a global spike in inflation that drove up the cost of food and essentials. People watching at home understand that Canada is not immune to global pressures such as climate change, tariffs, supply chain disruptions and fuel costs. People understand that Canada is not immune to all this, but we are able to act on what we control. That is exactly what we have done.

Food prices have gone up faster than inflation due to shocks caused by global supply chain disruptions, new tariffs, climate-related weather events and, as I already mentioned, geopolitical tensions.

In the face of this reality, our government has taken concrete steps to make life more affordable in the short term, while strengthening food security and supporting innovation in the agriculture and agri-food sector.

I spoke with our colleagues at the Union des producteurs agricoles, or UPA, to better understand how we can become more resilient, produce more here at home and be less dependent on foreign imports.

To support those most affected by rising food prices, in January, our government announced the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit, a very targeted and important benefit that will help over 12 million Canadians.

Every member of the House here today has constituents in their ridings who will benefit from this measure because it will help people cover the basics of everyday life. This measure is based on the GST credit. The benefit will provide an additional $11.7 billion in support over six years. That is close to $12 billion that will go into Canadians' pockets. First, we are talking about a one-time payment that will be issued starting on June 5.

I am counting on all members of the House to tell their constituents that many people will receive this assistance on June 5. The payment will be 50% of the total annual GST credit amount for 2025‑26 and will provide immediate assistance of $3.1 billion to eligible individuals and families.

In addition, the GST credit will be increased by 25% for five years starting in July. There is a one-time payment, but we have also included support for the coming years to help families cope with the cost of groceries.

The increase will provide an additional $8.6 billion in support and will also enable approximately 500,000 new individuals and families to benefit from this new program. This is substantial support.

Just yesterday, I was talking to people in a grocery store. I was also talking to the managers and telling them that putting money like this directly into people's pockets will help many families cope with the rising food prices we have been seeing. In practical terms, a family of four could receive up to $1,890 this year and about $1,400 a year for the next four years. A single person could receive up to $950 this year and about $700 a year thereafter. These are significant sums for nearly 12 million Canadians.

Our government is also delivering major tax cuts to give Canadians a break because we have heard how we can help Canadians. Since July 1, 2025, Canadians have been paying less tax after the government lowered the first marginal personal income tax rate from 15% to 14%. This was the very first thing we did as a government. The very first thing we did was to lower taxes for 22 million Canadians, and this is making a difference. This is responsible. This is a measure that has been helping everyone in this country. Thanks to this change, 22 million Canadians benefit from tax relief of up to $420 per person, saving two-income families up to $840 a year.

Our government has also eliminated the GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes up to $1 million and reduced the GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes between $1 million and $1.5 million.

In addition, and I think we should all be very proud as members of the House, we made the national school food program permanent. This is something that will be remembered for generations. It is providing school meals for up to 400,000 children each year, saving families with children in school who benefit from it an estimated $800 annually on groceries. Helping our children in making sure they have a good meal to start the day is, I am sure, something every member of the House should feel good about. I am thinking about the member who will have his grandchildren soon. This is a measure that is helping our kids and our grandkids yet to come and that is very well liked by families.

However, we do not stop there. There is more good news. We have also introduced the automatic federal benefits, starting with the 2026 tax year. We looked at what was going on in different countries, we looked at best practices, and I would say that automatic federal benefits are one of them. This will ensure that 5.5 million low-income Canadians automatically receive the benefits they qualify for by the 2028 tax year, including the Canada groceries and essentials benefit and the Canada child benefit.

We have also moved forward with ambitious pro-competition measures in the telecom and financial sectors to strengthen competition, reduce prices, offer more choice to Canadians and allow Canadians to more easily switch between providers and pay lower bank and service fees.

In conclusion, because I am eager to get questions from my colleagues so that I can say even more about what we are doing to support Canadians, our plan is moving Canada's economy from reliance to resilience. Canadians understand that we need to invest in our economy to build the strongest economy in the G7. That is why, in budget 2025, I was pleased to introduce and present generational investments in housing, infrastructure, competitiveness, innovation and our defence. It is a plan that has been applauded by international organizations like the International Monetary Fund, which says Canada has the strongest fiscal position of the G7.

In fact, we have the lowest net debt to GDP and one of the lowest deficits in the G7, and we are one of only two countries in the G7 that has a AAA credit rating. The strong fiscal position we have is allowing us to invest in our future but also to support Canadians now, at a time of need. That is why I am so pleased that, also with Bill C-30, we have put a number of measures in the spring economic update that would support Canadians, build our country and make our communities safer.

I look forward to hearing from my colleagues. I know they are keen to support Bill C-30 as well. They understand that we need to build Canada strong. They understand that we need to empower Canadians. They understand that we need to build safer communities. We will continue to work with all members of the House to make sure that we build this country strong and that we have the strongest economy in the G7.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the minister highlighted three areas that are very important to Canadian families, which are housing costs, food prices and gas prices. He has been sitting around the cabinet table since 2017. This is his ninth year. Here is where we are nine years later. Nine years later, we have the highest cost of housing in the country. We have high food prices. In all of the G7 countries, Canada has the worst food affordability. That is our record there. Of course, gas prices have become astronomical.

Now, apart from presenting the spring economic update, the minister has an opportunity to support our very sensible common-sense motion to reduce all fuel taxes for the rest of this year. Will he stand up and show some true leadership that will bring real, meaningful—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The Minister of Finance.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that my Conservative colleague realizes the reality in this country. He is right to say that what concerns Canadians is the price of rent, the price of food and the price of gas. I am sure he is going to go back to his constituents soon, and the good news is that he will be able to explain to them that in fact the Government of Canada has already acted to provide more affordable housing, which is the first pillar of affordability. That way, the grocery and essentials benefit is going to make a difference in the lives of 12 million Canadians.

He is probably going to talk also about the fact that we have reduced taxes for the first bracket, from 15% to 14%, helping 22 million Canadians. I am sure, because I know him, that he is going to talk also about the fact that we have suspended the fuel excise tax, which is providing meaningful support to Canadians across the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the minister on his speech, in which he gave a fine demonstration of his ability to speak English. In his speech, he extolled the virtues of suspending 10¢ of the excise tax on gas, saying that this temporary suspension would help with affordability. Perhaps he forgot to mention to us that this measure will also increase the deficit.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer told us who would benefit from this. It seems that the poorest 20% of people will save $59, whereas the wealthiest 20% will save $211. Could the minister explain his decision to favour the rich?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question also gives me the opportunity to speak in the language of Molière, whom we all admire here in the House.

The Bloc Québécois members may not have said it yet, but I look at them this morning and I can see it in their smiles and in their hearts. I think they are going to vote for Bill C-30 because they know that Quebeckers need this help. I believe that, as members here in the House, we all need to support Canadians at a time like this.

When my colleague goes to his riding, he is aware, just as I am, of the issues surrounding housing affordability, grocery prices, and gas prices. These are important issues, but it is important to note that Bill C-30 will bring this measure into effect. I hope that my colleague will not only ask a question this morning, but also take meaningful action to support lowering costs and lend a helping hand to Canadian families.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to welcome the Minister of Finance to my riding a few times already, and I know that he has seen all the benefits that our programs have delivered for families since we were both first elected in 2015.

Earlier, I heard Conservative members say that they would stand up for Canadians. However, when it came time to do so, for example on the Canada child benefit or the national school food program, a bill that I introduced in the House, they voted against those things. Those measures would have helped the families in those members' ridings, but once again, these are the kinds of things that they do to avoid helping families.

I would like to ask the Minister of Finance to tell us how all these programs have benefited families in my region and in his.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the wisdom behind my colleague's question. Yes, when it was time to stand up for Canadians, the Conservatives remained seated. When it was time to stand up for families, the Conservatives were nowhere to be found. I remember the votes. It is important to vote for affordability at every opportunity.

My colleague is right. What I saw with him in New Brunswick, we are seeing across the country. That is why Canada is a leader. We have taken action on affordable housing. That is the first pillar of affordability. We were there with the Canada child benefit. We want to talk about what we have already done, which is obviously helping families across the country. If there is one thing people watching at home know, it is that we on this side of the House will always stand up to support families and Canadians when they need it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for his speech.

My question is about the temporary suspension of the federal fuel excise tax and the fact that, under former prime minister Stephen Harper, that tax was used exclusively to fund urban transit.

If this fuel excise tax is suspended, what revenue will go to urban public transit?

That is the responsibility of another level of government, local government, which depends on this tax for urban transit.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for that important question. I am grateful to her. She has always encouraged the House to consider measures that will help Canadians across the country. She will be pleased to learn that, as I was saying, in the 2026 spring economic update, we actually put two-thirds of that $7 billion in additional revenue toward helping people. We are helping them with housing and groceries because I believe that is what matters right now.

Yes, investing for the future is important, but people are worried about making it to the end of the week or the end of the month. They want us to help them now, while we are building a strong country together. I think my colleague understands that we have demonstrated fiscal discipline while showing up with compassion to help Canadians in their time of need.

[Éric Lefebvre, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will start with some praise for the minister. There is no doubt that, in the House, the minister uses Canada's two official languages in his various speeches in a very equitable manner. I want to take this opportunity to thank him for that.

However, now I would like to challenge the minister. The motion I moved today has to do with the gas tax. Right now, we have a half measure, or technically a third of a measure, that ends on Labour Day. Labour Day coincides with back-to-school season, when families usually incur additional expenses.

I want to know why the minister is unwilling to adopt the Conservative proposal to eliminate all gas taxes for all of 2026. I challenge the minister to directly respond to my question.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to compliment my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska for speaking in both languages in the House. Doing that in the House is important.

My reply has two parts. First, I know many people in Richmond—Arthabaska, and I think that his constituents want fiscal responsibility and discipline. They understand that additional revenues have been raised and they also understand that a portion of these revenues are going toward help with housing and groceries. These measures are going to support affordability. I think that the impact of temporarily suspending the excise tax on gas is already having a direct impact at the pumps.

However, my colleague is well aware that over 80% of the price at the pump is determined by global oil prices. We are ready to do our part, and we have done it. I think that the people of Richmond—Arthabaska can see that our government will always be there to help them in their time of need.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to inform my colleagues that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Joliette—Manawan, who does excellent work in the House and who used to be our finance critic. I am assuming he will have a lot to say because he is now our critic for economic affairs. These are equally important roles because they are closely related.

Today, we are debating a Conservative motion that, not surprisingly, once again deals with oil and gas. That comes as no surprise because it is extremely rare to have a Conservative opposition day that does not focus on these issues. As far as I remember, it has happened only once in this Parliament—and I believe that I pointed it out to the House when it did—even though the Conservatives have an opposition day almost every week or sometimes even twice a week. I invite them to try a little harder and to be a little more creative next time.

In essence, what the motion before us is saying—and we may have a chance to talk more about this later—is that the cost of living is high, people are having a hard time making ends meet, and the cost of gas went up, so the gas tax should go down.

There is one thing in their motion that I actually think is good. They point out that the price of gas is 13% higher here than in the United States—we pay an extra 22¢ per litre—and that gas now costs 50¢ more per litre than when global oil prices were at the same level in 2014.

That is pretty interesting. They themselves are indirectly admitting that there is a problem. Why is gas pricier at the pump if the price per barrel is the same as it was in 2014? Are some people cashing in along the way? That is something worth exploring. My Conservative colleagues may have an opportunity to elaborate on that statement because we do not often hear them criticize oil companies, which are more accustomed to lining their own pockets than the other way around.

I also want to note that the Bloc Québécois will be voting against this motion. That should come as no surprise to anyone. We are not big fans of oil and gas companies. Essentially, if this measure is implemented, there is a risk that the deficit will get even bigger and that oil and gas companies will get more leeway to raise their prices so they can line their own pockets even more.

For our part, we work for everyday people. We do not work for the oil and gas companies, unlike the Conservatives and the Liberals. These days, the Liberals have teamed up with the Conservatives to defend the oil and gas companies practically on a full-time basis. I think that is just about the only thing they have accomplished in the year since the new Prime Minister took office.

I want to get back to the fact that the Conservatives are saying today that the Liberals have not done enough. In their speeches so far, the Liberals have said that, a few months ago, they cut gas prices by 10¢ a litre, which is the equivalent of the excise tax. It is a temporary measure that is theoretically supposed to help the taxpayers who are struggling the most and that will be in effect until September.

We said it at the time about this measure. The Conservatives keep making a big fuss about the federal deficit. Let us be clear: the federal deficit is significant, it has reached record levels, and it is worrisome. I think they are right to make such a fuss about it. We do the same on many occasions.

Generally speaking, when the Conservatives propose measures, we would expect them to be aimed at reducing the deficit, given the context. Instead, they are proposing measures that will only increase the deficit even further.

They are not satisfied with the $2.4 billion the Liberals added to the deficit by temporarily eliminating the 10¢ excise tax. They want even more than that. They say one thing and do the opposite.

As we know, the Liberals have already lowered the price at the pump by 10¢ and temporarily eliminated the excise tax, not out of the goodness of their hearts, but because the Conservatives were constantly demanding a reduction in the gas tax. They ultimately came up with a sort of compromise.

The Liberals decided they would do something symbolic to give the impression they are helping people. The hope was that this would ease the pressure and they could say they had cut the gas tax and beat the Conservatives at their own game. That is essentially the Liberal reasoning behind it. The Liberals are telling people they will save money at the pump, but the reality is quite different. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has done the math and said that it is not the poorest Canadians who will benefit from this situation, but the richest.

The government is telling the poorest 20% that they will get an extra $59, which is maybe the cost of filling a Honda Civic when gas is cheaper than it is at the moment. The richest 20%, on the other hand, will receive $211, which is far more money. Based on my calculations, they will get four to five times more money than the poorest people will. Is that what helping people is all about? Is that what helping ordinary citizens is all about? I am not entirely convinced that the government has chosen the best approach.

The Conservatives are proposing something similar today. They do not want to just suspend the excise tax temporarily; rather, they want implement permanent measures, or at least measures that would be in effect until the end of 2026, measures that would affect not only the excise tax but also the GST. I want to point out in passing that the Conservatives are always talking about making life more affordable for Canadians, but they have never proposed removing the GST on electricity, for example, even though electricity is a clean energy. No, they are proposing to eliminate the GST on gas, which emits greenhouse gases. Perhaps they could add electricity next time.

The Conservatives are always saying that we should operate on a level economic playing field, that we must not subsidize electrification. Basically, they want to help people, but only those who choose gas rather than electricity. That was just a quick editorial comment, by the way. Basically, what I want to say is that, rather than adding $2.4 billion to the deficit, the Conservatives' proposal will add about $5 billion to it. That is not $5 billion including the $2.4 billion, but $5 billion on top of the $2.4 billion that has already been approved. That would mean approximately $7.4 billion in tax breaks for oil, which is a lot of money.

We are not opposed to helping those most in need. We are not opposed to helping the middle class. However, as the Parliamentary Budget Officer's calculations have already shown, this kind of tax will primarily benefit those at the top rather than those at the bottom. We have a problem with that, especially when we see that the wealthiest are ultimately the ones who benefit. What the Conservatives are telling us is that the rich need to get richer and get even more tax breaks. Meanwhile, the government will have to tighten its belt, and everyone will have to pay for that deficit.

What is even more interesting is when the Conservatives mention that the price of oil has gone up over the past year. Why has it gone up? We know that it is because of the war in Iran. How has this affected ordinary people? They are paying more, of course. However, who has benefited from higher gas prices and the higher price per barrel? It is not us. It is the oil companies.

Look at Suncor's stock price, for example. In January of this year, Suncor shares were trading at $60. Today, in May, they are trading at around $90. That is a 50% increase. Suncor shareholders have benefited. However, it does not cost the company more to produce oil. It does not cost more to supply its customers. It is making more money off us, but the Conservatives are not putting the blame on them, and neither are the Liberals.

Here is another example. In January, Imperial Oil shares cost $120. Now, in May, they cost $180, which is also an increase of more than 50%. Suncor CEO Rich Kruger was paid $36 million in 2024. I am guessing he can afford to fill his tank. He has the money. Putting gas in his car is no hardship for him.

These are the people the Liberals and Conservatives want to help. I think that is sad, especially since, according to Environmental Defence, fossil fuel subsidies hit the $10‑billion mark in 2025. Oil and gas companies are not giving us a discount on gas even though they were given $10 billion. They are making money hand over fist and their share prices are skyrocketing, yet the Conservatives and the Liberals are eagerly joining forces to help oil companies even more. I think that is outrageous. The government should be helping real people, not oil companies.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank my colleague for his speech. I also commend his party, since he said that the Bloc Québécois will be voting against the Conservative motion. In that regard, we are on the same wavelength.

There are, of course, many other things my colleague mentioned that I do not fully agree with. There is just one aspect that I would like him to clarify for me. He said that the government's measures are just giving the impression of helping people. Does my colleague think that the Canada groceries and essentials benefit is just giving the impression of helping? That benefit will help 12 million Canadians starting on June 5.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that when we talk about giving the impression of helping, the parliamentary secretary talks about the benefit for families. There was actually a lot of marketing behind that. I am straying a bit from the subject of the debate, but I want to address this point anyway, because when I saw the government make that announcement, I could not believe it. I saw it as pure demagoguery.

The government used to provide what was called a family allowance or something called the GST credit. Then it decided to basically change the name and call it a grocery benefit, saying it is supposed to help with the cost of groceries. Personally, I think it is crazy that the government thinks it can fool everyone by simply changing the name at the top of the cheque and the name of the program, when it is the same program and the same cheque as before.

As for today's debate on the 10¢ excise tax on gasoline, I think it has been clearly demonstrated that the wealthy will benefit the most, not the poor, and that oil companies are likely to increase their prices even further. Generally speaking, there is a fairly simple principle in marketing that says that prices should be set at the highest possible price that customers are willing to pay. If any flexibility is allowed, what will happen? The oil companies will just raise their prices.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague and friend for his very interesting speech.

Throughout his speech, and especially at the end, he drew a parallel between the measures put in place by the pro-oil Liberal Party and the Conservatives' position. In fact, since the new Prime Minister has been in office, there is no difference between these parties when it comes to defending the oil and gas companies.

The Conservatives are saying that the Liberals keep running large deficits and that the Prime Minister has created a deficit that is twice as high as Justin Trudeau's deficits, which is mind-boggling. However, today, the Conservatives are proposing a measure that will swell the deficit even more.

What does my hon. colleague think about that? Why have the Conservatives become bigger spenders than the Liberals, and why do they want to run larger deficits than the Liberals?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague asked a very good question. I cannot wait to hear how the Conservatives would answer. I cannot answer for them.

What I can say, however, based on my analysis, is that the Conservatives never miss an opportunity to give oil companies a little pat on the back, regardless of how much it will cost taxpayers or how much more it will cost us. Unfortunately, we see that the Liberals have taken lessons from the Conservatives. According to Environmental Defence, we are talking about $10 billion in 2025. Consider the Liberals' proposed Trans Mountain pipeline, which cost taxpayers $34 billion, or the $1 billion in fees due under the UN convention that the Liberals are going to cover for the Bay du Nord project.

The Conservatives never see any problem when it comes to helping out oil companies, yet they rarely show up to help ordinary folks.

[Natilien Joseph, Liberal, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue along the same lines as my colleague. The member said that the government is just giving the impression of helping people. Is he willing to acknowledge at least one measure that has helped Quebeckers, or is his strategy to deny that any progress has been made, for political reasons?

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

Mr. Speaker, I could respond very quickly by mentioning the infamous $800 million tied to the carbon tax, which no province actually paid, yet they received funds anyway when the carbon tax was abolished. People in the rest of Canada received cheques anyway. In Quebec, we paid for the cheques that people in the rest of Canada received. I think we got taken for a ride. That $800 million was never seen again. Maybe the Liberals will make an announcement about that today. I would be very happy to hear one.

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

Mr. Speaker, the poor Conservative Party has been outmanoeuvred by the Liberals on its own turf, not on some minor detail or side issue, but on a central priority. The Liberals are rolling out the red carpet for the fossil fuel industry as if it were a gala. They are telling the industry to step right in, make itself at home, and take everything. They want more oil, more gas, and more pipelines. We can talk about the climate later, when it is too late. From subsidies to suspended laws, anything goes, and they are not even embarrassed. Things got so bad that the former environment minister quit cabinet. He has been clear that what his government is doing today goes further than what Harper did. That is saying something. When a former Liberal minister says the government has gone too far, then things are really not looking good.

Analysts are watching this unfold and they are all saying the same thing: Today's Liberals are more pro-oil than the Conservatives are. That used to be the Conservative Party's turf. What is more, there are actually about 15 Liberal MPs who think this makes no sense, but they are protesting in silence. They are hiding in a corner, probably whispering over their coffee. The result is clear: The Conservative Party has been outmanoeuvred on its home turf.

It is the same old story with today's motion. The government already suspended the excise tax over a month ago. It is a done deal. The Conservatives show up after the fact, out of breath, and say that they too want to suspend it, but that they want more than that. They throw in some other taxes to be scrapped to make it look like they are innovating, but everyone has seen through their ploy. We have also seen the real effect of this measure. Prices fall slightly and refinery margins rise. The result is that the consumer gains nothing. The deficit, meanwhile, takes a $2.4-billion hit. The trade-off is quite clear. There is no tangible benefit for regular folks, yet there is a hefty bill for everyone. Now the Conservatives are coming along and saying we should keep going and do more. When something is not working, the solution, of course, is to do more of the same. How very logical.

While people are paying more at the pumps, the oil companies are unaffected. They are pocketing the entire price increase. Gas is being sold here at global prices, even though what is happening in the Strait of Hormuz is having no impact whatsoever on our supply. The gas we use here comes from the west and the United States, but prices are still keeping pace with the global panic. How convenient. While the price goes up, oil and gas companies are making record profits. These are not just good profits; they are record profits.

That money does not even stay here. Most of it goes directly to the United States because most of the western oil companies are owned by American investors. We are paying more to make foreigners rich. I want to quote from a Canadian Press article published last month:

In an interview with The Canadian Press, former federal environment minister Catherine McKenna described the leaders of Canada's oil industry as “fat cats” close to Donald Trump who are “taking us for fools” and making “huge profits” from the war while “feeding the climate crisis”, “putting the economy at risk” and “demanding subsidies”.

Wow. The Conservatives keep telling us that gas prices are 50¢ higher than they were in 2014. In 2014, the Canadian dollar was worth almost one U.S. dollar. Today, that is no longer the case. Oil is sold in U.S. dollars. That means that we are comparing apples to oranges. However, that is the kind of detail that gets in the way of a good story and they like telling stories. Meanwhile, oil companies are raking in money as though it were an Olympic sport. Regardless of what happens elsewhere, we continue to pay. It is a convenient system, especially for those who can cash in. When even gas stations start offering discounts on gas, it might be because the price hikes are not as inevitable as some would have us believe.

The Conservatives also say that deficits are dangerous. Their solution is to make it even bigger. There comes a point where it is not a contradiction; it is part of the game. They want to cut taxes and lose out on billions of dollars, while refusing to say where they would cut, because that would upset people. They prefer to stay vague than be transparent.

Another problem is that the measure is not targeted and does not focus on helping those who need it most, those who are struggling to pay for groceries and rent. These are folks who earn very little and spend less on gas than the wealthy. The Liberal measure suspending the excise tax until September will save the lowest-income 20% of households $59, while the wealthiest 20% will save $211. That is three and a half times more. That is a lot of money that could have been used to provide more help those who need it most if it had been targeted. Under the Conservative plan, those with more money get more help. It is not complicated. It is simply not fair.

Let me remind the House of something simple that everyone knows, except those who pretend not to understand.

Experts like Luc Godbout have said it clearly: Lowering the gas tax, even temporarily, is a bad idea. This is not rocket science: It is a bad idea. It is bad for balancing the budget because the money disappears, and it is bad for the environment because, strangely enough, when gas is cheaper, people use more of it. He says we have to resist temptation. We cannot try half measures to see what happens or do something just because it sounds good at a press conference. We must resist temptation.

In politics, however, resisting temptation is not always easy. Price reductions are an easy sell. The problem comes later, because the tax will have to be reinstated eventually, and that will not be easy. People get used to paying less, and then the cost goes up. It is like offering a permanent but temporary discount. People do not buy it. In the end, the government is left with lower revenues and a decision that it cannot see through to the end. That is not policy; it is passing the buck.

It is going to take targeted measures, not unilateral cuts, to help those who really need it. We should not just throw money at everyone and hope it lands in the right place. However, implementing targeted measures is more complicated. Simplicity still seems to be very popular, even when it does not work. Coming up with targeted measures is not our friends' strong suit, and besides, gas consumption will go up. That does not help those who are struggling the most, it does not help the environment, and it costs a fortune. It is a bad idea all around. What is more, they want to extend this measure until the end of the year without knowing how long the international situation will last. This is not a plan. It is a knee-jerk reaction. I have said it before and I will say it again: These measures are not targeted.

Why not propose a targeted measure for people with lower incomes and for those living in rural areas, starting with farmers?

I know why they did not go that route. The Liberals did not announce any targeted measures either. Once again, the more someone has, the more they get. It is even worse in Quebec. Some of the measures the Conservatives want to scrap do not even exist in Quebec, yet we are still going to foot the bill for their massive deficit. We always end up paying; that is just how it works. No, this measure is not for everyone.

On top of all that, this is an administrative headache for the other provinces. It is obviously not thought through. It brings up fond memories of the cheques that the Prime Minister sent to the rest of the country last year in the middle of the election campaign. That $814 million was paid for by Quebeckers, but they did not receive a cheque. When the Bloc Québécois demanded a refund, the Conservatives and Liberals voted against it. When it matters, they are far more alike than they let on. This motion is not a solution. It is posturing, and we do not vote for posturing.

The poor Conservatives come up with ideas, only to see that the Liberals have already stolen them and even gotten them passed, not in a watered‑down version, but as a full course meal, including dessert. The Conservatives look at this and wonder what they should do. What do they do? They ratchet it up even more. It is one‑upmanship. It is like two people saying the same thing, but one speaks louder than the other, hoping that this makes their idea sound better. That is not how things work. It simply creates more noise for no reason. When push comes to shove, they have the same agenda, the same instincts and the same solutions. They are two parties with one idea. This is no longer opposition; it is an echo.