Business of Supply

A Conservative opposition day motion calling on the government to lower diesel costs, including removing federal taxes on diesel until July 2027 and expanding Canadian fuel production. Conservatives said record-high diesel prices, driven by federal taxes and rules that hinder energy projects, are hurting farmers, northern communities and grocery costs. Liberals said global factors are driving prices, pointed to tax relief they have already introduced, and argued the motion ignores Canada’s integrated refining ties with the United States. The Bloc Québécois members opposed cutting the gas tax, arguing funds should go to old age security instead, and raised concerns about government spending on a pipeline and the Alto train project. Green Party member Elizabeth May focused on foreign ownership of Canada’s oil sector and subsidies to foreign-owned projects, and exchanged views with Conservatives on processing raw materials in Canada.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text (opens in a new tab)

37 statements

Jean-Yves Duclos, Québec Centre

Liberal
“I agree that pilot projects are useful. They help us test ideas locally and learn from them. If they work well, we can expand them across the country. I want to see what we can learn from this project so we can keep using it.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 1 of 100

    Only 1% of this statement directly addressed the matter under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree on the importance and value of pilot projects. That is not always the case, but this is often how lessons are learned locally for well-targeted projects. Then, if it is worthwhile and appropriate, these pilot projects are expanded over time and across the country. My colleague is more of an expert on this issue than I am, but like him, I would like to see how the lessons learned from this pilot project could be used to extend the pilot project in question over time and across the country.

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

Liberal
“Cutting the fuel tax makes life more affordable for Canadians, along with other government steps. Can the member explain why measures like this are important?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague knows, the idea of the excise tax exemption is in good part to provide affordability for Canadians. It is all part of a bigger package that the government has brought forward. I am wondering if he could expand on why it is important that we bring in affordability measures such as this to support Canadians.

Jean-Yves Duclos, Québec Centre

Liberal
“Our child care program helps make life more affordable. Almost a million children across Canada use it every day.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 46 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to talk about when it comes to affordability measures for Canadians in general. I want to flag one example, which we may be talking too little about in this House. It is the universal child care program that we put in place just a few years ago. I was in Quebec in the late 1990s and early 2000s when it was implemented. For many decades, provinces and Canadians were looking forward to such a program. Many thought it would never be put in place, but it came to Quebec earlier, and then it finally came to children and families across Canada, with 900,000 children benefiting from the program every day.

Marilyn Gladu, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong

Liberal
“Our government wants to lower taxes, and we already took the tax off fuel. Global conflicts make it hard to predict what will happen next. We should watch the situation closely and offer help as things become clearer.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Clarity 49 of 100

    Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, of course, our government is committed to reducing taxes for Canadians. We brought forward Bill C-38 to take the tax off all fuel. I think, and hope, the member opposite would agree that it is very difficult to predict the situation globally in terms of the Strait of Hormuz and the various wars that are coming. Would he not agree that the prudent thing is to continue to monitor the situation and introduce responsive affordability measures as we know more about the global situation?

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

Liberal
“The Conservatives keep focusing on Justin Trudeau, but we have a new Prime Minister and a new government. We are cutting taxes and building big projects to help the economy and lower costs for people. The member should admit that.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, shortly, I will get the opportunity to provide more detail on the specifics of the Conservative motion, but I want to take up the member’s comments. The Conservatives seem to have this fixation on going back to Justin Trudeau. I will provide some further comment on that also, but I think it is important to recognize that there was a change in government when our new Prime Minister was elected. Since the last federal election, we have seen significant movements, whether in tax relief or commitments to build. We are talking about Pacific link. We are talking about LNG Canada phase two. These are significant ways we are supporting the economy while at the same time dealing with the issue of affordability. Would the member not recognize that?

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

Liberal
“Do the Conservatives agree that pausing the fuel tax helps all Canadians, not just farmers? Do they support doing that?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could give a clear indication of whether the Conservatives recognize that suspending the excise fuel tax will, in fact, not only help farmers but also help all Canadians. Do the Conservatives support that?

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

Liberal
“Conservative members seem to want all taxes taken off diesel and gas. Canadians deserve to know if the Conservatives want to get rid of all fuel taxes forever.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, whether it was during the week prior to the break week or even today, Conservative members who stand seem to give the impression that they would like to see all forms of taxation taken off the price of diesel. The leader of the Conservative Party applauds that. Canadians need to know very clearly from the Conservative Party of Canada if its position is to permanently get rid of all forms of taxation on gasoline.

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

Liberal
“I will not support this Conservative motion. World events drive fuel prices, but Canada's diesel costs are still in line with other major economies. Our government is already helping people with costs. We cut fuel taxes, lowered income taxes, helped with groceries, and opened new trade markets for our farmers. The House should back our plan to extend the fuel tax break instead of playing politics.”
  • A repeated line

    “As part of the spring economic update.”

    Said 4 times by 4 members since May 25.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to address the House in regard to the opposition motion before us today. It is a motion that I personally cannot support. At the end of the day, I believe the government’s policy is the right direction we should be following. There are a number of things the Conservative Party does not take into consideration. The primary one has to be the reality of what is happening around the world today. What is taking place in the Strait of Hormuz and in the Middle East is having a profound impact on prices not only here in Canada, but in fact around the world. I posed a question to the leader of the Conservative Party, and then another question was posed to him, and from my perspective, two things came out of them. The latter question posed to him was about the issue of taxes. He raised the United States and the rest of the world, saying that Canada was above the average. It is important that we get a sense of what is actually taking place in the G7 countries, which are the most industrialized countries in the world today. Our price on diesel fuel is no higher than it is in many of the other G7 countries, which includes countries such as the United Kingdom, which has England, and others. Being very selective is something the Conservatives are very good at doing when trying to draw comparisons. Canada overall is, relatively speaking, in a very okay position compared to G7 countries on the price of diesel. Can we do more? That is ultimately one of the reasons we have taken the actions we have since the spring economic update. That was one of the issues coming out of the questions for the leader of the Conservative Party. Another issue, the one I specifically asked the leader about, was in regard to the Conservatives’ position on taxation with respect to fuel. I suspect their position is even further to the right than President Trump’s, quite frankly. If we listen to what some of the Conservatives are saying, whether today or in the week prior to the break week, one could easily draw the conclusion that they believe, or at least some believe, or want to imply that we should be getting rid of all forms of gas taxes. Then they go on to give a number of reasons, which ultimately lead to farmers. That is where I would like to begin my comments, although somewhat belated. Conservatives like to talk a great deal about farmers, as if the Government of Canada has not been sympathetic to the farmers of our nation. Nothing could be further from the truth. I would challenge members across the way to indicate a prime minister who has been as aggressive, along with cabinet, in trying to pursue additional markets that go beyond the United States. I do not believe they would be able to identify a prime minister, cabinet or government caucus that has been as aggressive in pursuing export markets that ultimately will support our farmers. Let me give a good example of that. I had the opportunity to get a better understanding of what is taking place in the Philippines, because of the trade discussions happening today with Canada and the Philippines, which are led by the Prime Minister and the President of the Philippines. Agriculture is on the agenda, and that is only one of many discussions that have been taking place over the last 18 months. In fact, we have seen well over 20 trade and security agreements signed off on by the Prime Minister and this government since the last federal election. I will go to one agreement that I tie myself fairly closely to, because the Minister of International Trade has been very accommodating in listening to what I have to say about the potential between Canada and the Philippines. I am encouraged by how agriculture is being brought into the picture. I am someone who grew up in the Prairies and lived in all three prairie provinces, and I have been talking to farmers. The first farm I visited when I was 13 years old was the Stoynes farm just outside of Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan. I rode on the big tractors at 13. I understand the farming community in good part, although maybe not as well as others who are farmers and so forth, but understanding the industries has always been important to me, whether it is the canola or pork industry, which I have provided comments on in the past. I can say that the government, in particular our Minister of Agriculture, is very much on top of the file in regard to farmers, as is the Prime Minister, who also grew up in the Prairies. I suspect that if we were to have discussions with farmers, what we would find at the end of the day is that creating additional markets for their product is something they see great value in. Tell me another government that has been as aggressive at pursuing that. Another good example would be canola. My home province of Manitoba benefited because the Prime Minister took an interest in trying to take down barriers between China and Canada, which ultimately dealt with some tariffs on canola. We can talk about Farm Credit Canada and how it continues to support our farmers during what can be very challenging times. The special levy tax put on by the federal government was actually put into place by the current Prime Minister. The Conservatives like to say that it was their idea. Ultimately, the idea might have come from Wab Kinew, the Premier of Manitoba, who years ago gave a gasoline tax break to the people of Manitoba shortly after the last provincial election. The point is that it does not matter where the idea came from. What is important is that we recognize that there is a need today to deal with issues such as affordability. This is something the Prime Minister, this government and every member of the Liberal caucus understand. It is a reflection of what we are seeing and hearing within our ridings. We want to deliver for the constituents we represent, and the affordability issue is an important issue for every one of us. We are a strong, united caucus on the issue of affordability and in supporting the initiative that the Prime Minister has taken in providing direct relief through the levy on taxes on gasoline. That is not the first time. In fact, the very first action that was taken when he was selected as the leader of the Liberal Party and became the Prime Minister was getting rid of the carbon tax on gasoline. Was that 13¢ a litre or 17¢ a litre? I cannot think of the exact number. I think it was close to 17¢ a litre. Bob Zimmer: Whose idea was it? Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, it was our current Prime Minister who actually got rid of it. The member opposite wants to challenge me and ask whose idea it was. Let me tell him something. At one time, the Conservatives were against it. They then became in favour of it and then they were against it. That is the Conservatives’ track record on it. The current Liberal leader, today’s Prime Minister, who was elected in the last federal election, made a commitment to Canadians on the issue of affordability and he is delivering on the issue of affordability in many different ways. He is not just dealing with the tax on gas, whether it is the carbon tax or the levy that has been applied. We constantly hear from members opposite, and even from my colleagues, about the importance of affordability. It has not stopped there. When we talk about affordability, this is affordability that benefits farmers. The tax break that was given, shifting from 15% to 14%, helped 22 million Canadians. To my Conservative friends, many of those people are farmers. Understanding that there are ways in which we can directly help Canadians with the price of food, we not only converted the GST rebate but, significantly, put up front literally hundreds of millions of dollars and converted it into the Canada groceries and essentials benefit. Again, we are dealing with the issue of affordability. Once again, our farmers will benefit from that program. I put it in that form because I want members to recognize that one does not have to be in the opposition to value and appreciate what our farmers do for our nation. They are the ones who provide the food on our table. I have travelled on the highway in the Prairies, where we see four, five and more combines forming a row and harvesting wheat from the fields. It is an impressive sight. In the province of Manitoba, when I think of farmers and producers, it goes beyond just the crops. I have talked about how important the pork industry is to my home province of Manitoba, from those who process it to those who have the barns and get the pork ready to be put in places like HyLife, Maple Leaf Foods and Winkler Meats. These are important people who play a critical role in food security. Food security is important to every member of the government caucus. For this reason, we often talk about why it is so important to support expanding the year-round production of things like vegetables and fruits so that we are less dependent on countries like the United States in dealing with food security. These are some of the measures the government has put in place to support our farmers and Canadians as a whole. Today, we have the Conservatives saying, “Here is our idea”, because they want to one-up, in the best way they can, what the current government is proposing, even though when they had a chance to do things like this when they were in government, they did not. Now they are in opposition and they see a government actually taking some of these initiatives, they want to say they can one-up them. No one can accurately predict what the price of fuel is going to be six months from now. We might like to think we can. This is a measure that was put in place on April 20, I believe, as part of the spring budget update. It was meant to provide temporary support, with a suspension until the Labour Day weekend. That was in Bill C-30, if members want to look it up. We are grateful that the Conservatives supported that legislation. That was great. Over the summer, going into August, a decision was made that we needed to be able to extend that tax break, which is somewhat similar to what the Province of Manitoba did when it brought in its initial price reduction on gasoline. That is exactly what Bill C-38 would do. It would allow for that extension, which incorporates diesel and gasoline. I can say it makes a very tangible difference for consumers. I am very much aware of the Bloc’s concern with respect to the issue. How can we ensure that the tax break, whether it is given by the Province of Manitoba or the federal government, is being passed on to consumers? I believe we have some of the best civil servants and independent officers of Parliament, along with different stakeholders, who can ensure that those oil companies have a sense of accountability so that, in fact, that tax break goes directly into the pockets of the consumer. That is something we take very seriously. It is the reason why we are doing it in the first place. This is a government that is not only focused on short-term relief. It is trying to resolve the problem and secure our future so that Canada can be more independent in issues of this nature. It is the reason why we had the Pacific link announcement. It is the reason why we had the LNG Canada phase two announcement. These are multi-billion-dollar announcements that are going to increase Canada’s capacity. The leader of the Green Party talked about refineries. If we want more refineries in Canada, we have to continue to do what the government is doing, which is working collaboratively with other jurisdictions. We have to create the climate that will allow for the expansion of our refineries. I think we have 16 now. Maybe it is 17. I am not 100% sure. I know Manitoba is one of the only provinces that does not have one. I would like to see private businesses, private enterprises and the provincial governments, in particular, working with the federal government on ways we can do that. This government, headed by this Prime Minister, has made it very clear that we are a government that will work collaboratively with other jurisdictions, the private sector and, in particular, investors to build a stronger and healthier Canada for all and an economy that is there for all Canadians. That is what we are all about.

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

Liberal
“I disagree with the member. Over the last 18 months, investors from around the world have seen Canada as a great place to invest. The Prime Minister hosted global investors in Toronto and brought in almost half a trillion dollars in potential investment. No prime minister has done that before in such a short time.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, no. I disagree with the member, because all we need to do is look at what has been taking place in the last 18 months. In the last 18 months, we have seen investors from around the world looking at Canada as the right place to invest in. They can look at what took place in the city of Toronto when the Prime Minister hosted the world’s investors and generated the possibility of just under half a trillion dollars’ worth of potential investment. It is unheard of in Canada for a prime minister to do what he has been able to accomplish, especially in the time frame of 18 months. That is the reality, so I disagree wholeheartedly with what the member is suggesting. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Marilyn Gladu, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong

Liberal
“We should not extend the fuel tax break any longer. We already gave people tax relief twice. Towns and cities need that tax money to build things. Global events make the future too hard to predict, so extending this tax cut is not responsible.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader for his passion for Canadian farmers and Canadian agriculture, and then I want to add to that. He has reiterated that our government is clearly willing to bring affordability measures to help Canadians at this crisis time. Twice, we have exempted the fuel tax, with Bill C-30 and Bill C-38. However, let us not forget that some of those fuel taxes actually go back to municipalities to help with critical infrastructure. We cannot predict what the situation is going to be in the Strait of Hormuz and whether that is going to be resolved soon. It would be irresponsible to extend past the time frame that we can predict, what the revenues would be and what the benefits for Canadians would be. Would the member agree?

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

Liberal
“No one can predict future fuel prices because of instability in the Middle East. The government's current plan to lower gas taxes is the most responsible way to handle the budget.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, yes, I would agree. That is one of the reasons why I brought up how there is no one inside the House of Commons who can make a prediction about what the price is going to be in six, seven or eight months with any absolute certainty. That is because of what is taking place in the Strait of Hormuz and in the Middle East in general. The manner in which we are bringing forward the excise tax relief on gasoline is the most appropriate way. It is the responsible way to plan for the budget going into the future.

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

Liberal
“I disagree with the leader of the Green Party about the Manitoba pork industry. This industry supports about 10,000 jobs in the province. We send two million piglets to the United States only because we do not have enough barns here, and we are working to build more.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely, totally disagree with the leader of the Green Party. She should be talking to people in the Manitoba pork industry and get a better sense of where it is today. I have been on this file since the nineties, when we had the hog barn issue. The reason we have two million piglets going to the United States is that we do not have enough barns in the prairie provinces, particularly in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. There is a movement afoot to expand the number of farming facilities. The member undercut such an important industry. We are talking about 10,000 direct jobs in the province of Manitoba because of the pork industry. That is not to mention indirect jobs. If they go out to Brandon and Neepawa, not to mention Winnipeg, they will see the impact the pork industry is having. It is very real and very tangible. I suspect that there are thousands of people, including the premier of the province, who would be upset with the leader of the Green Party’s comments.

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

Liberal
“The hog industry in Manitoba is doing very well now because of new technology. I agree with the member that Canada should process more goods at home. We should do that for both pork and oil.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, in a positive way, we should note that things have changed through technology and so forth. It is an industry that is doing exceptionally well today in the province of Manitoba. True to form, when the member spoke, she talked about how we should be processing more within Canada, something I support. I hope to see this not only in our hog industry, but also in our petroleum industry.

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

Liberal
“Our government is giving people tax relief right now. For the future, the best way to help our farmers is to find new countries to buy their goods, not just the United States. We are working hard to do that.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Clarity 40 of 100

    Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, there is the short term and there is the long term. In the short term, the government is providing tax relief. In the long term, it is important to recognize that, whether it is through the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of International Trade or the other ministers, we are aggressively looking for new markets for our farmers. I suspect that in the long run, the healthiest thing we can do for our farmers is to support them by finding and supporting new markets that go beyond the United States. At some point, we will re-establish well in the United States, but we need to expand the export market, and that is something this government is aggressively pursuing. I suspect that our farmers in the Prairies will very much appreciate that fact.

Braedon Clark, Sackville—Bedford—Preston

Liberal
“I want the member to say more about how the government is helping with costs in the short term, like cutting the fuel tax, and in the long term, like big power projects.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to touch on something the member just mentioned, which is the balance between short-term and long-term factors. Perhaps he could touch on some of the short-term moves the government has taken, like the removal of the fuel excise tax, and the longer-term projects on affordability, like Churchill Falls or other projects that he might want to mention.

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

Liberal
“Our government is helping the economy for the long term. Companies have proposed more than 24 big projects worth nearly half a trillion dollars across Canada. This is happening because the Prime Minister works well with other governments.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. I had a lot of time to talk about the short term. Let me go into the long term. As the member would know, we have the Major Projects Office. Out of the Major Projects Office, 24-plus submissions have been brought in. We are talking about close to half a trillion dollars. In every region of Canada, whether it is for copper mines, at the port of Montreal or in Atlantic Canada, we are seeing a high level of interest where there are major projects in the works, and it is all because of collaborative federalism headed by the Prime Minister.

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

Liberal
“I want the member to share his thoughts on building more oil refineries. Canada has about 16 or 17 refineries now. Does he agree that we can only build more if businesses, provincial governments, and the federal government work together?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my friend could provide his thoughts. After serving in the B.C. legislature, does he recognize the important role that provincial governments, in particular, have in dealing with issues like natural resources? We talk about refineries and whether we want to increase the number of refineries. It has not been confirmed, but I think we have 16 or 17 refineries across the country. If we want to increase that number, the only way that could really be done in a practical way is by getting the three major stakeholders together, the private sector, provincial government and its entities, and the federal government. By working collaboratively, we might be able to get some more refineries built. Could I get his thoughts on that?

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 146

  1. Government Orders Business of Supply 110 statements
  2. Oral Questions International Trade 13 statements
  3. Oral Questions The Environment 6 statements
  4. Oral Questions Taxation 16 statements
  5. Oral Questions Pensions 4 statements
  6. Oral Questions Taxation 10 statements
  7. Oral Questions National Defence 2 statements
  8. Oral Questions Canada Revenue Agency 4 statements
  9. Oral Questions Small Business 4 statements
  10. Oral Questions The Economy 4 statements
  11. Oral Questions Public Services and Procurement 6 statements
  12. Oral Questions Health 7 statements
  13. Oral Questions Natural Resources 2 statements
  14. Oral Questions Agriculture and Agri-Food 2 statements
  15. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 2 statements
  16. Oral Questions Democratic Institutions 5 statements
  17. Government Orders Business of Supply 42 statements
  18. Oral Questions Women and Gender Equality 3 statements
  19. Private Members' Business Youth Criminal Justice Act 11 statements
  20. Government Orders Business of Supply 22 statements
  21. Government Orders Building Canada Strong Act 7 statements
  22. Government Orders Building Canada Strong Act 166 statements
  23. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  24. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements