“Cutting the gas tax did not lower gas prices. I want the Conservatives to tell us how much the measures in this budget will cost and how they will pay for them. Will they cut spending, raise taxes, or add to the deficit?”

“Mr. Speaker, as we have seen, the reduction in the federal excise tax has been offset by the increase in refining costs, which means that the price at the pump has not gone down. I would like my colleague to tell me the following: How many billions of dollars will all the measures in the federal government’s budget cost? How do the Conservatives plan to pay for that? Will they further increase the already sky-high deficit? If their plan is to make cuts, what would they cut? Which taxpayers would pay more in taxes?”

“The minister wants to pause the gas tax to help people save money. But this will raise the government deficit and help rich people more than poor people. Why is the minister helping the rich instead of the poor?”

“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?”

“I will vote against this Conservative motion. Cutting gas taxes helps rich people and oil companies instead of the people who need help most. It will also add billions of dollars to the federal deficit.”

“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.”

“The government renames old benefits just to pretend it is helping people. Also, cutting the gas tax helps rich people the most, and oil companies will just raise prices anyway.”

“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.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Both the Liberals and the Conservatives support oil and gas companies. The Conservatives criticize Liberal deficits, but now they are proposing a measure that will make the deficit even bigger. I want my colleague to explain why the Conservatives want to spend more and run bigger deficits than the Liberals.”

“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?”

“Both the Conservatives and the Liberals spend billions of taxpayer dollars to help oil companies. They do this instead of helping regular people.”

“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.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 29 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 →
• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“People in Quebec paid taxes for carbon tax rebate cheques sent to the rest of Canada, even though those other provinces never paid that money. We lost $800 million. I want the government to explain this.”

“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.”

“I oppose cutting gas taxes. Doing that helps rich people and oil companies, not regular families. It increases the deficit and harms the environment. We need targeted help for low-income and rural people instead.”

“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.”

“I support help for regular people, but I oppose spending billions to help oil companies. I want to know if government money for pipelines and nuclear reactors was purposely aimed at helping Brookfield, a large company where the Prime Minister owns millions of dollars in shares.”

“Mr. Speaker, yes, this measure is well targeted and it helps people. It is the type of thing we are asking for. What is poorly targeted is the $10 billion invested last year to help oil companies. I quoted former environment minister Catherine McKenna, who said how much they do not need it and that they are taking advantage of the system. I have a question. We know that Brookfield has a $16‑billion stake in the pipelines. Were the investments in pipelines deliberately targeted? I am wondering the same thing about the subsidies for small modular reactors that will go to the oil sands, because Brookfield has subsidiaries in that sector. Was that support deliberately targeted? When we start looking at the big picture of these massive deficits, we see that there are targeted measures to help the less fortunate, but there are also targeted supermeasures for big corporations that seem to benefit Brookfield, a company in which the Prime Minister still owns at least $10 million in shares, as far as we know.”

“Gas prices went right back up after we cut the fuel tax. Oil companies might just be keeping the extra profit. Our oil comes from Canada and the United States, so overseas shortages do not affect us. Why are gas prices still going up?”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank and congratulate my friend and colleague from Joliette—Manawan. I am not an economist, but we saw gas prices drop slightly when the fuel excise tax was abolished only to go back up to where they were before. Could it be that oil companies are pocketing extra profits? We also know that gas prices are rising even though oil from the Strait of Hormuz does not affect us because we get our oil from Canada and the United States. Why are prices rising when our oil is not from sources that have dried up in the Strait of Hormuz?”

“Cutting gas taxes is not the answer to high fuel prices. When the government cuts the tax, oil companies and refineries just raise their prices to make bigger profits.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend for his question. First, the price of a barrel follows the global price. When there is trouble in Iran, there could potentially be a shortage of oil to the tune of 20%, which drives up prices, including the prices here, even though extraction costs do not go up. When the excise tax on gasoline was reduced by 10¢, we saw that the price at the pump went down, but then continued to go up because of the price per barrel. Refineries here quickly saw their margins increase by 10¢, fully offsetting the excise tax. This suggests that refineries and oil companies, which seek to maximize their profits, as my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères was saying, saw a window of opportunity there. When the government pulled back, they thought they could charge a higher price and occupy that space. Is that the solution? That is what the Liberals did, and that is what the Conservatives are telling us to do even more. In the end, this mainly helps the oil companies, which are making huge profits. That is not the solution.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Housing money is important, but the government is making bad choices elsewhere. It cut $5 billion from public transit and still gives a lot of help to oil companies.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is also a pleasure to work with the parliamentary secretary, particularly on social housing issues. Do I agree with those investments? They are important, but the government is also taking steps backwards. For example, there is $5 billion less for public transit, and we have other similar concerns. The government is taking several steps backwards, while still providing a lot of assistance to oil companies. The fact that the former environment minister is saying that the current government’s environmental policies, especially its support for oil companies, are worse than those under the Harper government is a big deal, and analysts are saying that he is absolutely right. In my opinion, the evidence is clear.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“Cutting fuel taxes mostly helps rich people, and oil companies just raise prices to make more profit. What does my colleague think about that?”

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

“The Conservatives say they want to reduce the deficit. But their plan will add $5 billion to the deficit and help oil companies instead of regular people. I want them to explain why.”

“Mr. Speaker, not so long ago, the Liberals added $2.4 billion to the deficit by temporarily suspending the excise tax. Today, the Conservatives are saying we should pile another $5 billion on the deficit with the new measures in their motion. Could they explain why they claim they want to tackle the deficit but are suggesting measures that will actually benefit oil companies rather than ordinary people and will swell the deficit?”

“The Liberals are acting like the Conservatives. Cutting the fuel tax mostly helps rich people and oil companies. Gas prices went down a little when the tax was removed, but now they are back up. The oil companies are just using this tax cut to make more money.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague called the Conservatives right-wing. Judging from their current policies, the Liberals themselves seem to be drifting further and further right. Eliminating the excise tax primarily benefits the rich. It also benefits oil companies. We know that their supply costs are not going up, because they get their oil from Canada and the U.S., yet they are basing their prices on the global price of a barrel of oil anyway. Prices dropped slightly when the excise tax was suspended, but they have gone back up. How do we know the oil companies did not just take advantage of this measure to increase their credit margins?”

“The Conservatives are not a far-right party. We should not call them that here. The Liberals have adopted many of the Conservatives' economic ideas, like cutting taxes and supporting oil. If the Conservatives are far right, then the Liberals are too.”

“Mr. Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary kept repeating throughout his speech that the Conservatives are members of a far right party. I think we need to be very careful and cautious with our words. By repeating this over and over again, we end up diminishing the weight of those words. Even though I do not share the values of Conservative members, I believe that the Conservative Party is clearly not a far right party, and one should never say that in the House. I believe there is a world of difference between the policies it advocates and what is being done in the United States under the current presidency, for example. Furthermore, when we look at economic policies, we see that the Liberal government has essentially adopted all the Conservatives’ ideas: tax cuts, unconditional support for oil development, and even the reduction in gas taxes being advocated today. The Liberals did this a month and a half ago. Is the parliamentary secretary saying, then, that the Liberals themselves are members of a far right party?”