Business of Supply

The House debated a Conservative opposition day motion to remove all federal taxes on gasoline and diesel for the rest of the year and cancel the clean fuel regulations, as a response to high living costs. Conservatives said fuel taxes are pushing up prices for families and businesses and that the government’s existing measures are not enough. Liberals pointed to affordability steps they have taken, including cutting gas prices by 28 cents a litre, middle-class tax relief, $10-a-day child care, a grocery rebate and cancelling the consumer carbon tax, and questioned why members would not support the existing partial fuel tax pause. The NDP, Bloc Québécois and Greens opposed the motion, arguing that tax cuts are mostly pocketed by oil companies through higher prices, that the parliamentary budget officer and other experts say the cut mainly benefits wealthier Canadians, and that the lost revenue funds public transit and climate goals; the NDP proposed instead an excess profits tax on oil companies and price caps at the pump, and Bloc members raised unpaid carbon-tax amounts owed to Quebec. Much of the debate also took the form of exchanges over whether oil companies capture tax cuts and how best to provide cost-of-living relief.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text (opens in a new tab)

27 statements

Billy Morin, Edmonton Northwest

Conservative
“High gas prices are keeping seniors trapped at home because they cannot afford to drive to see family or go out. We need to lower gas prices to make life affordable for them.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, this is about Canada, whether it is the east coast, the northern reaches of our country, the west coast or where I am from, in Edmonton, Alberta. He is from Ontario. In Alberta, I heard the same thing. Last week, doing town halls and going to the Westend Seniors Activity Centre, I heard from seniors that they are picking and choosing when to go see their grandkids, when to get out of the house and when to engage with their community. What I learned from the elders and the seniors back in my own home community is that if one does not use it, one loses it. These are members who are stuck at home and slowly going the way that they did not wish for their retirement, being shut in. Gas prices can affect that. Gas prices can make life more affordable for seniors, the most important people who deserve an affordable life across our country.

Kurt Holman, London—Fanshawe

Conservative
“I support this motion to pause federal taxes on gasoline and diesel. Life is getting too expensive for families and businesses. High fuel costs make everything else cost more, and the government should stop adding to that burden.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, this morning millions of Canadians got in their vehicles and headed to work. They did not have the luxury of deciding whether they needed fuel because they needed it. They needed it to get to work, to get their children to school, to care for their aging parents and to make deliveries, visit clients, run businesses and earn a living. When fuel prices rise sharply, as Canadians have experienced in recent months, fuel begins to take up a larger share of the household budget. The money has to come from somewhere. The question is not whether Canadians will fill the tank, but what they will have to give up elsewhere in order to do it. Will it mean less money for groceries, for savings, for their children’s activities or to be set aside for an emergency? For millions of Canadians, fuel is not a luxury, but a necessity. That is why we are having this debate today. Fuel prices are not shaped by one force alone. Global instability, energy markets, supply chains and economic uncertainty play a role. Canadians understand that. There are many challenges facing Canadians that lie beyond the government’s control. Government cannot remove every one of those challenges, but at the very least it should not be making those challenges unnecessarily harder. That simple principle is at the heart of our opposition day motion. I was reminded of that principle just a few days ago while hosting a seniors town hall in London—Fanshawe. We discussed retirement security, the problems seniors are encountering with the dental care program and government services. Once again, the cost of living dominated the conversation. Seniors spoke about the rising cost of groceries, about housing costs and about the everyday expenses that continue to rise while their incomes remained fixed. What struck me the most was not simply the concern about affordability itself. Many were not speaking only about themselves, but were worried about their children and their grandchildren. They see young families working hard and struggling just to get ahead. They see household budgets stretched thinner than ever. They worry that, despite all the speeches, promises and announcements coming from the Liberal government, things continue moving in the wrong direction. Whether it is a young family, a tradesperson, a small business owner or a senior, the concern is remarkably similar. Life is becoming more expensive. People are feeling the pressure and they want the government to stop making it worse. In London—Fanshawe, we often experience these pressures early. Our community is deeply connected to manufacturing, transportation and North American supply chains. We sit just over an hour from the United States border. We understand better than most that Canada’s prosperity depends on our ability to compete. When uncertainty grows, communities like ours often feel it first. When costs rise, we feel it. When investment slows, we feel it. When businesses become hesitant about expansion, we feel it. When families begin tightening household budgets, we feel it. Today, London’s unemployment rate sits at 9.2%, the highest in the country. Communities like ours often experience economic pressures before much of the country does. That is why London is the canary in the coal mine for the Canadian economy. What begins in communities like ours rarely stays there. The warning signs eventually spread. Today, those warning signs are becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. Businesses are increasingly looking beyond Canada for opportunities to invest and grow. Families are delaying purchases. Workers are wondering what the future holds. Because of our close economic ties to the United States, trade uncertainty is not an abstract policy decision for communities like ours. It affects investment decisions, hiring decisions and confidence. It affects whether businesses choose to expand or wait. Canadians were told that the Prime Minister was uniquely equipped to handle this challenge. They were told that he would use every tool available to strengthen Canada’s position. They were told that he would secure a deal, yet today Canadian businesses are still operating under the same uncertainty. Investment decisions are still being delayed, employers are still waiting for clarity and Canadian workers are still wondering what comes next. We cannot control what President Trump says or does, no Canadian government can, but we can control how we position ourselves. We can control whether Canada is competing from a position of strength. We can control whether we are attracting investment or driving it away. We can control whether we are making it easier or harder to build, produce, transport and compete here at home. There are many challenges facing Canadians that lie beyond the government’s control. The government cannot remove every one of those challenges, but at the very least, it should not be making those challenges unnecessarily harder. Canadians are paying significantly more for fuel than Americans. Families, businesses, truckers and manufacturers all notice the difference. They are all asking a simple question: Why, at a time when Canadians are already facing so much economic pressure, is the government continuing to add costs of its own? Costs imposed on fuel do not stay at the gas station. They move through the entire economy. They affect transportation, agriculture, construction, manufacturing, deliveries and food prices. Every product that must be moved, every service that requires transportation and every business that depends on fuel eventually feels the impact. The costs go somewhere. They are reflected in prices, business decisions and competitiveness. Ultimately, they are reflected in the cost of living paid by Canadian families. That is why this debate is about more than what appears on the receipt at the pump. It is about whether Canadians can get ahead. It is about whether businesses can remain competitive. It is about whether our economy is becoming stronger or weaker. It is also about whether the government understands that every additional cost imposed on necessities eventually lands on the shoulders of ordinary Canadians. The issue extends beyond what Canadians pay at the pump. It speaks to a broader philosophy that treats higher costs as somebody else’s problem. Whether those costs are imposed through fuel taxes, the clean fuel standard or industrial carbon taxes, they do not disappear. They move through supply chains. They increase production costs. They increase transportation costs. They increase the cost of doing business. They ultimately make Canada less competitive. That matters for manufacturing, agriculture, transportation and industries that will shape the future economy. Countries around the world are competing for investment in advanced manufacturing, data centres and artificial intelligence. These industries require enormous amounts of affordable and reliable energy. If Canada continues making energy more expensive while our competitors work to attract investment, we should not be surprised when the investment goes elsewhere. Canadians spent years warning government that affordability was becoming a crisis. Conservatives spent years warning government that affordability was becoming a crisis. For years, Canadians were told not to worry. For years, they were told that the carbon tax was the answer. Eventually, after years of pressure from Canadians and years of opposition from Conservatives, the government finally backed away from its signature carbon tax. However, the lesson was larger than a single tax. Canadians were not objecting to a single line item on a bill. They were objecting to a broader approach that kept making essential parts of life more expensive. The lesson was that affordability matters. The lesson was that governments cannot continually make necessities more expensive and expect Canadians not to notice. The lesson was that when families are struggling, the government should be looking for ways to reduce the burden, not increase it. That is why temporary relief on federal taxes applied to gasoline and diesel through the remainder of the year makes sense. Canadians need relief now. People are already feeling the impact of rising fuel costs. They do not need additional taxes that make the situation worse. It is also why permanently eliminating the clean fuel standard makes sense. Temporary pressures may justify temporary relief, but structural costs require structural solutions. At a time when affordability remains one of the defining challenges facing Canadians, government should not be in the business of making energy, transportation and everyday life more expensive. Canadians are doing their part. They are working hard. They are raising families. They are building businesses. They are adapting to challenges that often lie beyond their control. There are many challenges facing Canadians that lie beyond the government’s control. Government cannot remove every one of those challenges, but at the very least, it should not be making those challenges unnecessarily harder. That is exactly what this proposal seeks to accomplish. For that reason, I am pleased to support it.

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

Liberal
“Our government cut taxes on gas to lower prices for Canadians. The Conservatives say they care about making life affordable, but they vote against our programs that help people buy food and essentials.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I think, as we wind up debate on this issue, it is important to highlight the fact that the Prime Minister was elected just over a year ago, and his first action was to take away the carbon tax. It had a wonderful and positive impact on the price of gas; I believe it was somewhere around 15¢ a litre. We can fast-forward to today, where we had, I believe effective April 1, a 10-cent reduction on the excise tax on gasoline. We have seen a significant drop because of the tax break provided by the government. What I have a tough time with is the hypocrisy that comes from the Conservative benches. They talk about affordability. When we introduce affordability measures like the groceries and essentials benefit, the Conservatives vote against it, and that is not the lone example. Why the hypocrisy from the Conservative Party of Canada when it comes to the issue of affordability?

Kurt Holman, London—Fanshawe

Conservative

Linked statement

“Our plan helps Canadians more than the Liberals' plan. The Liberals only cut fuel taxes until September 1, but we want to cut them until the end of the year.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 44 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am a little confused with regard to the definition of “hypocrisy”, because the Liberal solution was tax relief on fuel all the way to September 1, yet our solution is tax relief to the end of the calendar year. With regard to that, I see the Conservative solution as helping Canadians more than what the Liberal government is doing.

Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Rivière-du-Nord

Bloc Québécois
“I want to know why the Conservatives voted against our motion to pay Quebec the $814 million the federal government owes it. They say they want to help people save money, but they are ignoring Quebeckers.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Relevance 15 of 100

    None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the Bloc Québécois motion that called on the federal government to pay back the $814 million it owes Quebeckers. His colleagues voted against that motion. That seems rather strange to me. If they really want to help Canadians save money and they really want to be fair, then why have they forgotten about Quebeckers? I do not understand. The Conservatives hold some ridings in Quebec. I am shocked at this lack of interest in the plight of Quebeckers. I would like to hear my colleague’s thoughts on that.

Kurt Holman, London—Fanshawe

Conservative
“Our plan will help all Canadians, including people in Quebec.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick answer for my Bloc colleague: The proposed solution, as I mentioned before, was to help all Canadians, including Quebeckers.

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

Liberal
“I want us to start private members' hour now if everyone agrees.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to begin private members’ hour.

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 122

  1. Government Orders Business of Supply 64 statements
  2. Government Orders Business of Supply 45 statements
  3. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 4 statements
  4. Oral Questions Taxation 4 statements
  5. Oral Questions The Economy 4 statements
  6. Oral Questions Justice 6 statements
  7. Oral Questions The Economy 16 statements
  8. Oral Questions The Environment 4 statements
  9. Oral Questions Finance 6 statements
  10. Oral Questions Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship 10 statements
  11. Oral Questions Public Safety 8 statements
  12. Oral Questions Women and Gender Equality 2 statements
  13. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 6 statements
  14. Oral Questions Natural Resources 2 statements
  15. Oral Questions Fisheries and Oceans 2 statements
  16. Oral Questions Labour 2 statements
  17. Oral Questions The Environment 2 statements
  18. Oral Questions Business of the House 2 statements
  19. Government Orders Government Orders 2 statements
  20. Oral Questions Taxation 4 statements
  21. Oral Questions Emergency Management 3 statements
  22. Government Orders Business of Supply 15 statements
  23. Government Orders Business of Supply 15 statements
  24. Government Orders Business of Supply 27 statements
  25. Private Members' Business An Act to repeal certain restrictions on shipping 12 statements
  26. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  27. Government Orders Business of Supply 366 statements
  28. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements