Debates of Sept. 22nd, 2026

Canadian Fuel Affordability Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Does the hon. member have have unanimous consent to split her time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to tell members about a man I will call David. David owns a little coffee shop on a main street that could be in almost any town in Canada. It is not fancy. There are a dozen small tables, a chalkboard menu behind the counter and a bell above the door that has probably rung a million times. He turns on the lights, ties on his apron and starts getting ready for the morning rush. He has been doing this for 20 years now, and he knows his customers well. He knows who wants an extra shot of espresso and which construction crew will go through that door just after six.

David loves his business, but lately he has begun to dread opening the envelopes that arrive in the mail. The price of everything he buys has gone up under the Liberal government. The coffee beans cost more. The milk costs more. The cardboard cups cost more, and so does his insurance, his electricity and his rent. David cannot simply pass every increase along to his customer because he knows they are struggling too. He sees it in his customer who used to order breakfast and now just gets coffee, or the young mom who used to stop in three mornings a week and now comes once, so David absorbs what he can.

Then there is the espresso machine. It has been sitting behind the counter for nearly 15 years. Every morning, David listens to it wheeze and rattle and hopes it makes it through another day. A new one would make the shop more efficient, use less power and let him serve customers faster. Maybe he could even expand his business a little. However, by the time David has paid his employees, his landlord, his suppliers and the government, the money he thought he might put toward a new machine is gone, so he calls the repairman again, replaces another part and tells himself, “Maybe next year.”

Do members remember that young mom David used to see three mornings a week? Let us follow her home. She and her husband live only a few streets away. They are not poor. They both work. They have a modest house, two kids and two incomes, and 10 years ago they thought they were doing pretty well. They were the kind of family we used to call comfortably middle class, but lately, comfortable is not the word they would use. Their family car is 15 years old now. There is a warning light on the dashboard. The mechanic has told them that there is another big repair bill coming, and they know they really should replace it. Ten years ago, they probably would have. Today, they look at the price of a new car, look at the payment and decide the old car will have to last another winter.

Let us now leave the family's kitchen, and come with me to a very different room. Imagine a glass boardroom high above a city. Around the table are not mom and dad wondering whether the roof can survive another winter. There are executives, accountants, lawyers and investment advisers deciding where a multinational corporation should put its next billion dollars. Now Ottawa has put something new on that boardroom table: the mega deduction, a major new tax break designed to convince companies with capital, like, let us say, Brookfield, to invest here.

Put those three rooms side by side. At the kitchen table, mom and dad have already gone through the bills twice. They need a new car and the roof needs work, but none of these qualify for this new Liberal mega deduction. What Ottawa offers them is Bill C-38, a few pennies per litre when they fill their gas tank.

A few streets away, David may be able to use the mega deduction if he buys that new espresso machine, but first he has to find the money to buy it. After paying his employees, his suppliers, his rent and his taxes, there is not enough left. Let us face it. A deduction on something someone cannot afford is not too much help. His tax break is much the same as the family's: a few pennies of relief when he gases up.

Then there is the third room, where the numbers have a lot more zeros. Here is a corporation headquartered in New York with the capital to make enormous investments and a team of accountants who can calculate exactly how much a new tax deduction changes the return. Lucky for them, their former board member is now the Prime Minister of Canada. For that room, Ottawa is proposing a massive tax advantage, and this is where I think something has gone badly wrong.

Do not get me wrong. Lower taxes have always been a Conservative principle. I want businesses investing in Canada, expanding here and creating good jobs, but lower taxes should not be a privilege reserved for the people with enough money and the right high-powered friends to be able to take advantage of them. If lower taxes help a multinational invest and grow, why would we not want that same breathing room for David? Why would we not want it for the families sitting around the kitchen table? They have spent years watching more of their paycheques disappear into taxes, while the cost of housing, food and fuel has climbed. Small businesses have faced the same rising costs, along with layer after layer of taxes, paperwork and government rules.

Now, after making it harder and harder for them to get ahead, governments arrive with a few pennies of temporary relief on their gas and expect them to be grateful. Canadians deserve better than that. David does not need Ottawa to run his coffee shop or a government program to tell him that a new espresso machine would make his business more productive. He already knows that. He needs enough money left at the end of the month to buy it. That family does not need Ottawa deciding where its money would be most productive either. Mom and dad already know exactly where their next $100 needs to go. That is their decision because it is their money.

Yes, let us give them the fuel tax relief in Bill C-38, but let us not call a few months of relief a solution. Conservatives have been pushing for relief at the pumps for a long time, years in fact, so we are glad the Liberals have finally discovered that lower taxes can actually help people. However, this is what happens when a Liberal government tries to borrow a Conservative idea without understanding the principle behind it. Canadians do not need a temporary break from high prices. They need policies that actually bring prices down. Gas prices have skyrocketed, and while Canada sits on some of the largest energy resources in the world, years of taxes, regulations and barriers to developing those resources have left us more vulnerable when global energy prices rise. This is a trap the Liberals created themselves.

Relief means lower taxes, affordable energy and developing the resources Canadians already own. Let us stop piling costs onto the people who produce, work, hire and raise families in this country. Let us stop piling costs onto the people who are working to raise their families in this country. Let us stop treating small business like an endless source of tax revenue and paperwork. Let us stop taking from Canadians only to decide in Ottawa which multinational will get it back. Instead, let us remove the barriers that have been squeezing the middle class and small business, and then give Canadians room to do what they have always done.

Here is what Ottawa seems to be missing: We would not have to wait 10 years for some foreign company's investment to trickle down to the rest of us. Small and medium-sized businesses employ nearly two-thirds of Canada's private sector workers. If thousands of businesses like David's had a little more room to breathe, the effect would begin on main street across this country almost immediately. David does not need 10 years to decide what to do with another few thousand dollars left in his business. He already knows. He fixes the machine, buys equipment, gives an employee another shift or finally hires a person he has needed for months.

Maybe mom starts stopping at David's coffee shop three mornings a week again. Her five dollars goes into David's till. David pays his employee. His employee buys lunch down the street. A roofer gets the family's business. The mechanic gets paid. People begin making plans again instead of putting them off for another year. Nobody in Ottawa had to decide where those dollars should go. Ordinary Canadians did that themselves.

That is what prosperity looks like: Canadians keeping more of what they earn, making their own choices, building their businesses, looking after their families and creating a better life for the people they love. That is what a real Conservative government would fight for.

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

Madam Speaker, Bill C-38 is all about giving a break on the issue of affordability to Canadians. This is something the government has recognized as very important. One of the aspects the government brought forward last year to help children was the national food program within our schools, helping 400,000 young people. I am glad the Conservative Party today is going to be supporting Bill C-38.

I am wondering if the member could provide her thoughts on whether she believes the Conservative Party should reverse its position and support Canada's national food program, which supports 400,000 children from coast to coast to coast.

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

Madam Speaker, we support giving Canadians relief from federal fuel taxes. The question is whether the government is even going far enough. Bill C-38 would keep the excise tax at zero only until January 31. It would then bring back half the tax in February and March, before the regular rates return in April.

Canadians' affordability challenges do not suddenly disappear in February. Families will still need to drive to work. Businesses will still need to move goods. Farmers and producers will still face fuel costs. That is why Conservatives have called for fuel tax relief to continue through Canada Day as part of a broader action to lower costs.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Madam Speaker, I think it is really important that in the House, we tell the stories of Canadians who are struggling. While I was sitting here, I actually got a message from a local farmer in my riding who said to me that they are paying $2.43 a litre for farm diesel. They wonder how much higher these costs can go before they can no longer afford to produce anymore.

I am wondering if the member is hearing similar types of stories. Does she believe that this meaningfully addresses the concern that we often get from farmers of increased input costs that are making their businesses completely unsustainable?

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

Madam Speaker, I cannot begin to tell members how many times in the last couple of weeks I have heard about the cost of diesel. Fuel costs affect much more than what a family pays when they fill up their vehicle. Fuel is an input into producing and transporting goods across the country, which we hear everywhere. Farmers need it to operate equipment. Truckers need it to move products. Businesses need it throughout their supply chains. When those costs increase, they do not simply disappear. They place additional pressures on producers, businesses and ultimately consumers. Extending relief means continuing to lower one of those costs during a period when Canadians and Canadian businesses are already dealing with significant economic uncertainty. The objective should be to keep costs down rather than to begin putting them back up again.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I especially appreciate the focus that my colleague provided on small businesses. One of the things we have seen with the tariff relief is that for most of the programs, almost nothing is available to businesses under $1 million, like the coffee shop that she was discussing. I am wondering if my colleague could elaborate on that and talk about how that is playing out in her community.

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

Madam Speaker, I am hearing that everywhere I go. We had a large picnic on the weekend before we came back, and everybody was talking about the fact that this is making it very difficult for businesses to continue.

Fuel tax relief is only one part of a broader economic approach. The Conservatives' economic action plan has called for gas tax relief to continue through Canada Day, faster approval of projects awaiting federal permits, removing the GST from Canadian-made automobiles, eliminating the capital gains tax on reinvestment in Canada and reducing other barriers facing Canadian investment.

The principle connecting these measures is straightforward: lower the costs facing families and employers and create better conditions for investment, employment and growth.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie South—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am thrilled to be standing here today to talk about this bill, which would continue the lowering of the excise tax on fuel until January. Over the summer, I listened to my constituents and many of the business owners who have had to deal with the unjustified tariff war that is going on right now, which was started by the American administration. This type of relief and the continuation of this type of relief are welcomed.

It was Ann Landers, the famous columnist, who once said, “People of integrity expect to be believed,” and when they are not, “time [will] prove them right.” The finance minister's introduction of this bill has proven that Conservatives have acted with integrity on this issue and have worked hard for many years to save people money. We see this as a welcome temporary relief that perhaps does not go far enough, but who can argue against saving people money? Certainly, the Conservatives have been arguing this for years.

Much of what Canada is facing, our citizens are facing and our businesses are facing, if we are honest about it, has been a self-inflicted wound of failed economic policies, policies that have not improved the lives of Canadians and have not saved them money. In fact, it has cost them a tremendous amount of money over the years, especially over the last 11 years, and we are seeing that continue. A lot of these failed policies were implemented long before Donald Trump became the President of the United States. It is Canadian businesses, Canadian families and Canadian workers in all sectors, like the energy sector and the interprovincial sectors, who are paying the price.

What we have seen over these years is Canadians walk into the grocery store, especially seniors and single moms, who are those who can least afford it, look at the prices and, sadly, have to put many items back on the shelf. We are seeing a nutrition problem, and a food security problem, that is rampant in this country. I know that because many of the calls that I take in my constituency office are literally about walking people back from the ledge because they cannot afford their rent, their groceries and the necessities of life.

For many years, Conservatives have been arguing for the removal of the excise fuel tax, the carbon tax and other taxes, because there is a cascading effect across the supply chain that impacts the prices in stores. When the producers, the wholesalers and the transporters have to pay this type of tax, it has an impact on people. It is only now, after 11 years, that the Liberal government is starting to understand what we understood years ago, which is that many of these failed economic policies, including these policies of increased taxation, are having that kind of effect on people.

I stand here today in support of this legislation, but I also remind the House, and I remind you, Madam Speaker, as I know you are aware of this, that there have been several occasions when Conservatives have proposed reducing the tax on fuel, whether it is the excise fuel tax, the industrial fuel tax or other taxes. Each time we proposed those through opposition day motions, every single member of the Liberal government voted against it. Every member on that side voted against. There have been three occasions.

This started in 2024 when the Leader of the Opposition proposed that we remove fuel taxes to save people money. At that time, the Conservatives were well ahead of the curve. We were not listening to polls. We were listening to our constituents about the impact that gas taxes were having on them, not just on the price they were paying at the pumps, but also on the price they were paying at the grocery stores and the price they were paying on all goods across the economy.At that time, in 2024, we proposed removing the tax on gas. The Leader of the Opposition did that. What did the Liberals do? They voted against it.

Then, when Parliament resumed on April 15, 2026, the member for Calgary East proposed a motion, which states:

That...

(i) gas prices have soared upwards,

(ii) Canadians now pay almost 20 per cent more at the pumps than Americans due to high Liberal taxes,

the House call on the government to adopt the Conservative plan to save Canadians 25 cents-a-litre by removing federal taxes on gas and diesel—

Diesel is in a whole other stratosphere with respect to pricing and how it is impacting producers, especially our farming communities.

I will continue with the motion from back then in April:

(a) removing the Fuel Excise Tax for the remainder of 2026, which costs Canadians 10 cents-a-litre;

Every single Liberal voted against that motion. In fact, if I recall the debate back then, the Liberals who were standing up that day were accusing the Conservatives of spreading misinformation, of lying to Canadians about the savings they would have on removing the excise fuel tax, yet here we are today with government legislation that is proposing exactly what we proposed years ago, which could have started saving Canadians money.

Then, on May 27, 2026, the member for Richmond—Arthabaska—des-Sources in Quebec talked about 13% higher gas prices in Canada than the United States, which equates to 22¢ more on average per litre. Again, every single Liberal member voted against that. People of integrity expect to be believed. When they are not, time will prove them right, and time is proving the Conservatives right on this and many issues, including the carbon tax and any other pieces of legislation that were Conservative ideas that the government is now implementing.

I subscribe to the politics that, if it is a good idea, it does not matter whether it is a Liberal idea, a Conservative idea, an NDP idea or a Green idea. If it is a good idea that benefits Canadians, Canadian families and Canadian businesses, then it should be supported. Every single one of those opposition motions that we put forward was a good idea to save Canadian families and Canadian businesses money, but in every circumstance, the Liberals voted against it. All of a sudden, here we are today, and it is a good idea.

We have a constitutional obligation as an opposition to question the government. Our constitutional obligation is to hold the government to account. It is to call into question decisions that are being made, legislation, regulatory reform or any other thing that it proposes. That is our constitutional obligation, and we uphold that obligation with great respect and great integrity.

It is also our obligation to propose solutions to the government when things are not working, when things are failing with respect to legislation, regulation or other policies. That is precisely what we did. I know the government House leader, yesterday, stood up and accused Conservatives of proposing things that were un-Canadian. The government would rather have an audience than an opposition. These were good ideas that were being proposed years ago, and we will continue to propose ideas that are going to help Canadians.

Let me end with something I received from a constituent. As the House knows, we have the ability to communicate all the time through various means, including sending out mailers. I got this one over the summer.

Chris from Innisfil said, “The gas tax needs to be much lower”, which would improve affordability and automatically lower prices. Today, as I stand here, I say to Chris that I am sorry that we could not have done this earlier. We tried, as an opposition, to make life more affordable and to save him money. On this day, we will do that.

We are going to support the government on this. It does not go far enough. We believe that it should extend at least to Canada Day in 2027, because the economic crisis, the food insecurity crisis and the affordability crisis that families are facing are real and are going to continue under the Liberal government.

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

Madam Speaker, as I indicated earlier, I am glad to see that the Conservative Party is recognizing the value of supporting this particular piece of legislation. Hopefully, through collaboration, we will see this type of support for other types of legislation as we try to build that stronger and healthier Canada.

My question to my friend across the way is one that I posed earlier to one of his colleagues: Is the Conservative Party prepared to revisit its position in regard to the school nutrition program, which supports and feeds 400,000 children in Canada?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie South—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is nothing to revisit. The government passed it. It is implemented. I have not heard much in my riding about children actually benefiting from it. Nobody is reaching out to me to say that it is the greatest program in the world.

We will support things that benefit Canadians, Canadian families, Canadian workers and Canadian businesses, and we will support the things that save them money during the great economic crisis that is going on right now. Again, this is a self-inflicted wound that started long before Donald Trump became the President of the United States. We will vigorously oppose, upholding our constitutional obligation, things that do not help Canadian workers, Canadian families and Canadian businesses, and the history of the Liberal government is that there are not many things that have worked properly except for well-connected insiders.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals said for months and months that their gas tax was not creating an affordability crisis. We brought forward motion after motion, and every Liberal member voted against getting rid of the gas tax. Can my colleague explain what he thinks of the change of heart the Liberals had. Why are they now admitting that they were wrong after all these months, when Canadians could have had a tax decrease on groceries for months? Now they are bringing it in a little bit late. Why has there been a change of heart from our Liberals colleagues?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie South—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, first, I want to say that I am sorry that I did not get any questions from my colleague from Mirabel.

However, I will respond to the hon. member's question. I think I spoke about it. I do not think the Liberals, in their ideology, subscribe to the concept that it does not matter who proposes an idea, but if it is good for Canadian workers and Canadian businesses, then maybe they should adopt it. This could have been saving people money, not just all summer, but back in 2024, when we first proposed the removal of the excise fuel tax. We saw, as Conservatives, and we were hearing it from our constituents back then, that the tax was having a profound impact, not just on them personally, but as a cascading effect across the economy.

The only thing that I can say to the hon. member is that, if it is not a Liberal idea, then it is a bad idea, and that is what we have been dealing with in this place. It is time that we stopped this and started thinking about Canadians, rather than our political fortunes in this place.

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

Madam Speaker, not to be too pointed about it, but does it ever occur to the Conservatives that they should sue the Liberals for plagiarism? The Conservative platform is now being implemented point by point by the current government.

I would add another one, and I do not agree with these changes. I know the Conservative caucus would have reason to cheer, but why would the Conservatives promise to cut overseas development assistance? The Liberals promised they would not, and then they did by $2.7 billion. There have been many promises. Certainly the Liberals promised to meet our Paris agreement targets. They are clearly not meeting them.

I ask my hon. colleague from Barry South—Innisfil if the Conservatives have considered getting a lawyer.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie South—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is a great question. The Prime Minister has proven himself to plagiarize. It is a well-documented fact that he has plagiarized many things, so it is no surprise to me, as a Conservative, that he is plagiarizing our platform, because our platform is what Canadians needed. Unfortunately, they did not vote for it, but we will continue to propose solutions that make lives better.

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

Madam Speaker, that was not the first time I have stood up thinking it was my turn to speak. Sometimes we get a bit rusty after going on vacation or being away for a while.

As members may know, there are no surprises with me. I always like to start a parliamentary session by telling the Speaker that I am happy to see her. Our Speaker is glowing today, and it is great to see her here in such good health. I am delighted to see her in the chair, especially since we are kicking off the parliamentary session with a pretty important bill.

This bill is very short, and we are familiar with it because we already passed a previous version in April. The government simply wants to extend the fuel excise tax suspension for a few more months.

I want the government to know that I believe the work we do as parliamentarians is important. I think it is important for us to examine this measure in committee and to hear from witnesses. It is important for us to question how effective this measure is. It is important to consider alternatives to this measure. This is not the only measure with the potential to help lower costs for consumers, farmers and people along the distribution chains. That is why it is important for us to do this parliamentary work.

I was a little worried that the government might try to fast-track this bill by imposing closure and saying that the bill made sense, that it was not controversial, that we did not need to do our duty as parliamentarians and that we had already passed it in April.

It is vital to remember the importance of the opposition's role. This is especially true in a Parliament with a growing majority. It is also vital to remember the role of civil society and the importance of hearing from witnesses. There are people in civil society, people in the private sector, academics and researchers who, in many ways, are much more knowledgeable about this tax mechanism than the Minister of Finance himself is. The government should have the decency to invite those people to talk to us about the tax.

What is really going on with gas prices and the gas tax? I talked about that during the debates we had before the summer recess and the by-elections. Speaking of the by-elections, I would like to welcome my new colleague, who happens to come from my home region. He should know that there is a Garon Street in Chicoutimi that was named in honour of my grandfather. I never knew him, because he passed away a long time ago, but I am confident he would be a sovereignist today. Anyway, that is a whole other debate.

When I spoke about gas prices in April, I decided to concentrate on a fairly stable indicator, namely the price of a litre of unleaded gas—which was a major issue at one time—at a self-service station over the past 25 years. To account for inflation, I adjusted it using the consumer price index. I found that, over a 25-year period, the price of gas, on average, has not gone up, which is quite surprising. In real terms, the price at the pump has gone up, but everything else in the economy has gone up as well. When we factor in inflation, the price remains fairly stable at about $1.60. Even though the long-term trend is flat, the price of gas fluctuates significantly. It can go from $1.60 to $2 to $1.40.

Over the past 25 years or so, the price of gas, in real terms, has fluctuated significantly but has remained fairly stable. For 80% of Quebeckers and Canadians, there has been a significant real increase in purchasing power. What that means is that people's wages and incomes, even after adjusting for inflation, have increased faster than the cost of living. What happens when the wealthiest 80% of Canadians experience a significant increase in their purchasing power and see, in real terms, gas prices remain stable but fluctuate slightly? We get an increase in the number of kilometres driven per person, an increase in household fuel consumption, an increase in average vehicle size and an increase in the number of vehicles per household. In the Montreal area, during that period, the number of motor vehicles grew faster than the population.

I am not sure whether the 80% of people with bigger, gas-guzzling vehicles are the ones who should be given priority and given immediate relief through a gas tax measure, especially since it is unclear whether this measure would also support the energy transition. This is something we should discuss with witnesses in committee. We know that this is a government that has abdicated its climate responsibilities and abandoned its greenhouse gas reduction targets, so I am not sure whether the people in that 80% are the ones who should be receiving the most immediate assistance.

The other 20% of people are struggling to make ends meet, are living paycheque to paycheque and may be dealing with unforeseen circumstances, such as a breakup or a move. Often those people have to have a car because they can no longer afford to live in major cities and urban centres, where housing has become very expensive. Even though the price of gas has remained relatively stable over time, when adjusted for inflation, these people are very vulnerable to fluctuations in gas prices. For a household that is struggling to make ends meet, it is a big deal when gas goes from $1.68 a litre to $1.75. It might mean skipping meals, making the kids do without, not buying as many clothes or cutting back spending on vacations, education or school supplies. That is the issue.

That once again brings us back to the question of whether this measure is helping those who really need it. This measure benefits 100% of people who use gasoline, including the Conservative members who pull into the parking lot in trucks 10 times bigger than my car. The government is spending money on everyone to help the 20% of people who really need it. We need to rethink this approach. Would a targeted transfer not be more appropriate?

I know that the Minister of Finance increased the GST credit, which was good. Nobody took issue with that last winter or last spring. He changed the name. I do not remember what he called it, but the words “Canada Strong” must be in there somewhere because that is what they call everything. He bumped up the benefit that goes to these people, the folks who need it most. This transfer payment, this GST credit—the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, I believe it is called—is income-tested and adjusted based on family size according to the same criteria as those used to calculate family benefits, making it possible to direct support to the people who need it.

What does that mean? It means that with $1 of public money, we can help someone in need five times over. I think this is a conversation we need to have. When someone goes to a gas station, they take money out of their pocket and pay for a litre of gas. There are two ways to help: either increase the amount of money in their pocket, or bring down the price of gas—or at least keep the increase in check. I do not know what kind of reasoning led the government to conclude that the only way to help the poorest people was simply to manipulate the rising price of a litre of gas.

If the government believes that people need more help, I think that the grocery benefit might be a good option. It is worth discussing, especially since there is this myth floating around that a one-cent reduction in the excise tax translates to a one-cent reduction in gas prices. That is not true. When the excise tax is reduced, people along the distribution chain, like the distributor, the refiner or the gas stations themselves, pocket the difference. There is definitely no guarantee that it will end up in consumers' pockets.

Why is that? It is because consumer demand for this is often fixed. People have to get around, especially the 20% who are struggling the most and need help the most. These people have to get from point A to point B. They have to go to work. They have to go grocery shopping. These people need to fill up their tanks, and they will do it. They will fill up at $1.68, $1.72, $1.80 or $1.85 per litre. They will do it even if it means going without something else. Retailers know this, and the oil industry knows it. In economics, this is called inelastic demand.

That means the retailer knows they can pocket the excise tax reduction because people are going to fill up anyway. That is what we are seeing. Gas stations have public relations teams. Of course, they lower prices for a day or two. Then people forget. After that, they blame Iran and raise the price.

We are beginning to see studies on other countries that have used the current government's method to put money in people's pockets. David Byrne is a world-renowned researcher in industrial economics and, more specifically, in competition issues related to gas prices. That is his specialty. I do not know what led him to focus on that, but he has devoted his whole life to it. He started studying Australia's data and realized that the mechanism that Canada is using was not actually benefiting the poorest people. The benefit was spread out through the entire chain.

Does the government think retailers need help? Perhaps. Does it think gas stations need help? Perhaps. It obviously thinks oil companies need help. It spends its time giving them public money and subsidies. That is about the only thing it is interested in, other than travelling.

The idea that debating the bill today means we are going to debate assistance that will end up in the pockets of the people who need it most has yet to be proven. We need empirical evidence and data. We need proof that that is the case.

The Bloc Québécois has been calling for an increase in old age security for years. Seniors are often on fixed incomes. They too are dealing with inflation. They too have to travel. They too have problems, because taking public transit often becomes challenging with age. They need to go out to receive health care services.

We were told that seniors 75 and over would receive an OAS increase, but not seniors aged 65 to 74. They are somehow a less important, second class of seniors. At the time, the Minister of Finance and his predecessor told us that there was no money for that; it was too expensive. As I recall, the cost was between $3.8 billion and $4 billion a year. There was no money to help out seniors.

How much does today's proposed measure cost? I looked at the assessment. It adds up to $5.3 billion. Today, we are talking about $5.3 billion that will probably fall seriously short of helping the people who need it the most. Furthermore, if the excise tax reduction does affect the cost of gas, it will also go to fill up people's Hummers.

Does this mean that the whole thing is bad? No, it means that it may not be targeted enough, that it may not be the only mechanism available, and that it is very expensive. It also means that the government has the money to do this. It also means that there is another way to use these funds. The issue is not whether we can afford $5.3 billion. We probably can. The question is, what are we forgoing?

There are seniors tuning in today. They have been asked to tighten their belts ever since the Liberals took office. I mean when they really took office, back in 2015, because that is when it started. That is what seniors are being told. There are seniors in all our ridings. Madam Speaker, I know seniors in your riding who are telling me the same thing. In short, the government will be telling them that it actually can come up with $5.3 billion.

It is important for us to do our jobs as parliamentarians. I am not making some grand speech today to say that everything is wonderful or terrible; rather, this is a call for cooler heads to prevail, a call to study this measure. It is a call to say that this does not actually need to be rushed through, that the government does not always have to forge full speed ahead, that it does not have to circumvent committees and that we do not need to cut corners on the parliamentary work we are being paid to do.

We heard from witnesses when we first studied the bill. Many people said their piece. There is no unanimity in Quebec. I am not saying that everyone is against it, and I am not saying that everyone is in favour of it, but there is clearly a conversation in Quebec about the usefulness of this measure. There obviously is one.

There were pre-budget consultations. The budgets come out in the fall. That was done in June. There was work done in August, with our colleagues on the Standing Committee on Finance. Some witnesses appeared. They were diligent people such as Luc Godbout, who holds the research chair in taxation and public finance at the Université de Sherbrooke.

It has long been recognized that these folks see it as their duty to keep the public informed, and they take that duty very seriously. Luc Godbout said:

...in our opinion, the federal fuel excise tax exemption seems ill-advised from a public finance standpoint. It would be better not to extend this tax holiday and to maximize the chances of restoring the tax as it was and eventually indexing it.

The other issue is that the gas tax, when adjusted for inflation, goes down if it is not indexed. Its impact on our wallets has been shrinking over the years. That is what has happened over time.

Luc Godbout went on to say:

I would remind you that a tax holiday of this nature benefits higher-income households more than low-income households. So in order to facilitate the reintroduction of the tax, consideration should probably be given to putting it into a community development fund or some other fund dedicated to that.

I think it is important that these folks appear before the committee. It would be worth asking them what their analysis is based on. It would be worthwhile to hear from other parties who hold opposite views.

If we question the measure, we are accused of being against Canada and against families and not wanting to help Canadians. I should hope that we are better than that in this Parliament.

There are other people who appeared before the committee. In its pre-budget submission, Alliance Transit stated:

Following the recent abolition of the carbon tax, this new tax break does nothing for families who do not own a vehicle or for those who have purchased electric vehicles, and there are many such families in Quebec and major cities across the country. This tax break is also costing Canada a significant amount of money, when those funds could be put to better use fighting poverty and maintaining our infrastructure, which is in a sorry state. This measure is unfair and short-sighted.

Who are the members of Alliance Transit? I have a whole page of organizations that endorse its message, including Accès transports viables; Équiterre; the Réseau des centres d'expertise de mobilité, formerly known as the ACGDQ; the Regroupement national des conseils régionaux de l'environnement du Québec; Trajectoire Québec; Vivre en ville; Ville en vert; Vélo Québec; Nature Québec; and Les oubliés de l'autobus. That is a lot of people. What these people are saying is not based on ideology. It is based on facts. We know that. Young people learn this at university in their undergraduate studies. They are taught that just because consumers are theoretically getting a tax break does not mean that the person running the business and managing the tax break, which is the gas station in the case of the excise tax, is not going to pocket some of the money.

What needs to happen? First, we need to have a broader conversation. The Liberals are here, and they are listening. Never again will the Liberals be able to say that increasing OAS for seniors is too expensive. Never again will they be able to tell us that this is a poorly targeted way to help because OAS decreases as income rises. It is more targeted.

The Liberals need to tell us whether this increase is going to become permanent. Economist Milton Friedman once said that nothing is so permanent as a temporary policy. They did it once. Now they are doing it again. Will it still be temporary in a few months' time if there is another war? Will it still be temporary if the situation in Iran keeps dragging on? How does this fit into the budget? How will the government inform taxpayers? It made an announcement in the middle of summer, tabled a notice of ways and means and is trying to rush it through.

At what point will they renew the measure next time, and based on what criteria? Does the Minister of Finance simply lick his finger, hold it up to the wind and decide to renew it? Are there any criteria? What are they? Has anyone measured the impact? Do we know if there are any consequences? Has the government hired researchers to figure that out? What studies has the Department of Finance carried out since April to demonstrate that this measure will actually put money in the pockets of those who need it?

I think this Parliament needs to consider legislation like this, especially since it is already in effect and is already subject to a notice of ways and means. We are not blocking it. This Parliament just needs to determine whether, under the current circumstances, this is the right way to invest taxpayers' money.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague with great interest, and I congratulate him. I would like to warmly welcome my hon. colleague back to the House.

He talked about what is worth discussing. I have two very clear questions to ask him, and I hope he can answer them very clearly and unequivocally.

First, I believe that the Parti Québécois supports or is calling for the suspension of the excise tax on gasoline. Will the Bloc Québécois support the Parti Québécois on this issue?

I also have a second very quick question. He spoke at great length and in great detail, but I would just like to know how he is going to vote.

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

Madam Speaker, first of all, we are certainly going to vote to send it to committee. We do not want to see the bill defeated; we want to send it to committee. That is our job. Considering that the member was Speaker of the House himself for a brief moment, he is well aware that this needs to go to committee so that we can perform our parliamentary work with diligence.

Members will recall that we voted in support of this measure last April. What I am saying is that here, unlike Quebec City, we implemented and applied it. That is why we need to know where it stands.

Now, I may be mistaken. The member may be monitoring things even more closely than I am. All parties in the Quebec National Assembly have a plan to balance the budget, yet here we are talking about $5.3 billion while the government keeps digging itself into a deeper fiscal hole year after year. Trump is not the only cause. My colleague opposite saw that. The hole is getting deeper by the year.

If the federal government had a plan to return to a balanced budget, if public finances were healthier, if things had been managed differently in all the years since 2015, this would be an entirely different conversation. I think that the parties in Quebec City that are proposing this or other measures have included it in a comprehensive framework to fight poverty and help people with the cost of living. That is exactly what we are asking for. What we are saying is that it must be part of a whole. I think all the parties in Quebec City that are proposing this or other measures have made the effort.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned folks who drive Hummers, and I would just point out to him that the new Hummer is actually an EV, so he might actually be in favour of people who drive Hummers.

I want to congratulate the Liberal government on implementing the Conservative agenda, albeit maybe at half speed or a dollar late and a day short. Nonetheless, this has been something that we as Conservatives have been calling for, and this is just part of a growing trend of the Liberal government adopting our agenda and promoting it.

Would the member not agree that the Liberal government is, although it may be at half speed, definitely implementing the Conservative agenda?

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

Madam Speaker, I am going to set the petty politics aside and focus on the first part of the question.

I made a joke about Hummers, but it is important to understand the purpose of this measure. The goal is not necessarily to help everyone who drives. The goal is to use the excise tax—to lower it and potentially lower the price of something that people buy, namely gas—to leave more money in the pockets of those who need it most. That is my understanding of the purpose of this measure.

From that perspective, the question is not whether people are free to buy whatever vehicle they want, or whether people who own Hummers are bad people. I just wanted to point out that when we lower the price of gas for everyone, if it actually goes down, that also benefits people who would not otherwise benefit from a more targeted measure. I am merely calling on everyone to keep an open mind, to consider alternative policies or at least a range of policies that this could be part of. I think this definitely needs to be considered. As for who is implementing whose policy, I can barely keep track of who is in which party in this Parliament. The floor crossings are never ending. Things get tossed to the Senate, then they get tossed back. I cannot keep track anymore. I do not even know which party's platform is which. I do know that the Bloc Québécois's position has not changed.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, a report from the Centre for Future Work is predicting that we are going to see an additional $50 billion in consumer costs, or a 4.2% increase in inflation. That is if the Strait of Hormuz closed today. We have not seen an increase of even one cent on the production of oil and gas, yet oil and gas profits are skyrocketing. At the same time, the Centre for Future Work is predicting that we are going to see a $65-billion-plus increase in excess profits. What this bill would do is actually increase the debt. Canadian taxpayers pick up the tab anyway. We want them to get relief right now.

Does my colleague agree that an excess profit tax would help alleviate the pressure on the Canadian taxpayer and that oil and gas, when they are winning big like this, should contribute more? We heard the Conservatives even say that the Liberals have taken their agenda and are implementing their agenda. We know that Conservatives in Britain implemented an excess profit tax on oil and gas, but these Liberals will never do it. We are seeing record profits. There is no threshold of profits before they implement an excess profit tax.

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

Madam Speaker, that is certainly an interesting question that deserves careful consideration. I believe we would be remiss if we did not examine such policies. However, at the core of what my colleague is saying is the fact that these problems are chronic. What is happening geopolitically is becoming more and more entrenched. Lack of competition in the gasoline market, in retail gasoline sales, is a chronic problem. Refining margins are a chronic issue. These things are chronic.

Now we find ourselves with just two weeks' notice that we are going from one temporary measure to another. Consumers do not know what will happen with this measure a few months from now. Will it be permanent? Will it be temporary? What other supports are there? Which measures can be made permanent? Will it be gone for good, and so on? The takeaway from our colleague's remarks is that we need to have a thoughtful conversation about structural, long-term measures if the problem becomes permanent. That is the one debate we are not having at the moment.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Vallée-du-Haut-Saint-Laurent.

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

Madam Speaker, that is the first time that the Chair has said the new name of my riding.

I would like to thank my colleague. Every time I listen to him, I feel as though I am getting a lesson in economics. I myself did not study economics, so I am always learning. It is no small thing to have someone with a Ph.D. in economics in the House. When he speaks, his facts are supported by his knowledge and research. I will give him the last word because the questions and comments period is drawing to a close.

What message does he want parliamentarians here in the House to take away from his speech?