“I cannot support this Conservative motion as it is written. Diesel costs hurt workers and supply chains, but cutting fuel taxes without any studies mostly helps big oil companies instead of regular people. I want targeted help for people who need diesel, not broad tax cuts that blow a hole in the budget. Also, voters in Quebec just rejected the high-speed rail project, and the government must stop it.”

“Mr. Speaker, I extend my regards to all of my colleagues. Before I begin, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Jonquière—Hébertville—Pays-des-Bleuets, a riding with a very lovely name, by the way. We are very pleased with it. The name-change process took some time, but the effort was well worth it. I would like to take a moment to say that a provincial election was held in Quebec yesterday. Quebeckers elected a new government, a Parti Québécois government. I wanted to use my time in the House to congratulate Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, his team, and the Parti Québécois, and to tell them that we are proud of them. I would especially like to congratulate my colleagues from the Laurentians, colleagues from my riding: Geneviève, from Mirabel; Dieudonné, from Les Plaines; Pierre Nantel, from Argenteuil; and Audrey Bujold, a mother of four, from Bellefeuille. I want to offer them my congratulations. It will be a real pleasure to work with them. In an election like this, many people lose and leave their seats. On election nights, we see a lot of the candidates and MNAs. I just want to take a minute to recognize not only all of the candidates and all of the members who are leaving the Quebec National Assembly, but also their teams, the people who work with them but whom we did not see last night. Regardless of party affiliation, these people, like the ones in my own riding, help constituents with issues related to health care, day care and school. They serve the public. Today, they are facing a major personal transition. I want to recognize the commitment of all those who work in an elected official’s office. Everyone here has a team. Even if those people were not in front of the cameras yesterday, I want to tell them that, everything else aside, we are thinking of them. Our teams are important and deserve our recognition. I also wanted to say that people in the Laurentians are making it clear how they feel about about Alto high-speed train. More than 60% of voters in Mirabel voted against the high-speed train. If you look at the map along the route, with the exception of two places where there are stations, the vote is clear. It is clear in Papineau. It is clear in Argenteuil. It is clear throughout the Laurentians. It is clear in Lanaudière. It is clear in Mauricie. It is even clear in Trois-Rivières. It is clear in the Quebec City region. This project is a mistake. Quebeckers made that clear yesterday. The government needs to reconsider this project, particularly given that Alto’s methods, business practices, lack of transparency and the way it pays out bonuses are contrary to all our democratic ideals and to all the ideals we hold about good business practice for a project like this. The fact that the people at Alto are being driven by Bill C-15, a law that also contradicts our democratic ideals and violates people’s rights, should also give us pause. We know that expropriations are on the horizon. We know that Alto is already laying the groundwork. We know that Alto’s relationship with the truth is murky, to put it very politely. It is clear that today, the government must acknowledge that Quebeckers said no to this project last night. Now, let us get back to the Conservative motion. I thank my colleagues for proposing it. It should come as no surprise. The Conservatives are in favour of removing all taxes, although which ones depend on the day and the subject. Today, we are talking about diesel. This motion is full of shortcuts and statements that are not backed up by facts. However, there is a reality behind it. Diesel is a key input in the transportation of goods. It is a key input for the cost of the food we eat, for taxi drivers and for people in construction. It is a key input whose price has increased considerably. I would simply like to remind the House that the Bloc Québécois has repeatedly asked, during a crisis, for special relief measures to be offered to businesses and individuals who use diesel as an input. We are talking about targeted measures, and that is exactly what we are discussing today: We have to acknowledge that the increased cost of diesel is significantly affecting supply chains, yet at the same time, we need to be fiscally responsible. We cannot vote every tax like this into oblivion every time a problem crops up, without conducting any studies, without any facts and without first doing our job. I think the Conservatives should follow our example and adopt the Bloc Québécois’s approach. I think there is a way to target measures more effectively and be fiscally responsible while still reducing supply chain costs. That is the challenge I am putting to the Conservatives today. Clearly, the Bloc Québécois would have a hard time supporting this motion as it stands. Once again, I am calling for facts and studies, for details about the impact of these taxes and the effect on government revenues of measures like this motion by the Conservatives, or the excise tax suspension introduced by the government. We are members of the opposition. Our job is to legislate, to look at motions and bills and ask ourselves the following questions. Is the money being redistributed to the right people? Is it making life more affordable for the right people? How is it affecting taxpayers? Is it a gift to the oil companies? Often, the answer is yes, or unknown, because the Minister of Financeis not giving us information. Yesterday, there was a committee meeting on the excise tax. I asked the Minister of Finance a factual question, and his answer shows that we are not off to a good start. I asked the minister whether the department had conducted any studies on the excise tax rebate of 10¢ on gas and four cents on diesel, for example, to see what proportion is actually going into taxpayers’ or consumers’ pockets and assess whether this measure is actually working. Are we talking about 90%, 85% or 75%? Did the department do its job? The minister told me that 100% of the excise tax rebate is going into people’s pockets, that there is no need to conduct studies, that this is an easy calculation and that the answer is obvious. People at home can figure it out on a napkin. That is basically what the minister told me. The member for Québec Centre is right in front of me. He taught the impact of taxation at the university level. He understands the importance of doing the math. That does not necessarily mean we are against it. It means we are being asked to vote for bills without knowing the impact they will have. Is the money being redistributed to the right people? Is it regressive? The minister showed up at the committee meeting with an infographic, with cartoon-style speech bubbles, and told us he had an infographic. He is the Minister of Finance and likes to remind everyone that he is in the G7. The finance minister of a G7 country shows up in committee with an infographic, without any studies. The excise tax has been suspended in Australia. Researchers at the University of Melbourne concluded that due to a lack of competition, among other factors, it has effectively become an oil subsidy, that a significant portion of the tax was stuck in the distribution network and that the money was not all ending up in people’s pockets. Some might say that Australia is so far away. In the U.S., it has been suspended in several states. As it turns out, nearly a quarter of the tax cut ended up in the pockets of oil companies. During the Senate Committee of the Whole, Senator Gignac put the question to the minister, but the minister refused to answer. The same thing is happening in the debate on today’s motion. The Conservatives wants to suspend all taxes, claiming that it will help Canadians, but without considering competition issues or the fact that oil companies are going to fill their own pockets. If they want to subsidize oil companies, they should say so, they should tell us that that is part of it. As a member of Parliament, my job is to think about the 20% or 25% of people earning the lowest incomes, people who have seen no increase in their real purchasing power for years, whose wages are lagging behind, who have to use their vehicles to get to work or engage in construction or agricultural activities. My job is to ask myself whether these are the people who will benefit directly from the measures proposed today. We are talking about permanent measures. The minister told us yesterday that his excise tax measure is targeted, but that it affects everyone. We therefore had to ask whether it was targeted or whether it affected everyone, and if he had any definitions in that regard. There were no definitions. The minister says that this is temporary, yet there is nothing more permanent than a temporary tax cut. History has taught us that. These tax cuts become permanent. Yes, I quoted Milton Friedman. Imagine that. One witness told us that the crisis in the Strait of Hormuz will continue to affect the supply chain long after the crisis ends. We cannot keep cutting taxes without knowing what impact it will have, especially since, and I will say this again to the Conservatives, the federal government’s budget situation is troubling. There is no plan to balance the budget. Several fiscal anchors have been abandoned. The government is not being rigorous. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has said that the definitions for what constitutes capital investment are inconsistent. Yesterday, the minister could not even tell me whether an excise tax cut is a capital investment. When the Conservatives move a motion like the one before us today, I want to know how it will affect the public purse. We cannot keep cutting taxes left and right and then expect the budget to balance itself. It is not like an apple that falls from the tree. Gravity will not simply take care of that. I urge the Conservatives to be more thorough and to give us the facts. I also want to let the government know that it has to give us the tools we need to do our parliamentary work.”

“World events keep pushing fuel and fertilizer prices up. The Bloc Québécois proposed responsible, targeted help for sectors that rely on diesel, like farming and taxis. The government has still not acted on our ideas.”

“Mr. Speaker, before the events involving the Strait of Hormuz, there was the war in Ukraine. Fertilizer supplies and the fuel market were affected. As for the government’s position, there is a different prime minister now, and, with all due respect to my colleague, it is hard to tell who is who. What I am saying is that the Bloc Québécois has put forward proposals. We recognize that the supply chain depends on diesel. That is true in agriculture, it is true for taxi drivers and it is true for paratransit. We put forward measures that were targeted, costed, budgeted and responsible, but the government has not acted on them yet.”

“The government misled people about the Alto train project. It will cost far more than they said, and it will take money away from local transit that Quebeckers need. The government should admit that we were right about this from the start.”

“Mr. Speaker, the Quebec government’s position will become clearer. I think we can see where it is heading on this issue. I think we are seeing a consensus emerge. One thing is certain: The government has been spreading disinformation on this matter from the start. We have the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s assessment. We are being told that the costs provided were off by at least 30%, and we do not even have the analysis of the request yet. We do not know about passenger-kilometre subsidies, but we do know that the project will not finance itself. When it reaches $140 billion, $150 billion, $160 billion or $170 billion, knowing that infrastructure budgets are interconnected, who is going to pay for that? It will be Quebeckers, when it comes to paratransit, public transit and east-west mobility in the Laurentians, which we need in the Laurentians. When budgets exceed that amount, it does not show up anywhere. We have been sounding the alarm from the very beginning. I am saying that we were right too soon. Every new fact that comes to light—independent facts from people who are not paid by Alto to invent studies and facts—proves that we were right. I think the government should recognize that and give us more credibility.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 42 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“My colleague talked about helping people and businesses deal with high diesel prices. Would that help include farmers?”

“Mr. Speaker, what I found interesting in my colleague’s speech is that he gave examples of assistance measures that could be targeted to individuals and businesses that use diesel and that could benefit from a reduction or some form of assistance to deal with higher diesel prices. Does my colleague think that some of those target groups would be farmers, for example?”

“I want everyone to support our plan to cut fuel taxes for farmers and key parts of the supply chain. This costs taxpayers less and lowers food prices for everyone, even people who do not drive.”

“Mr. Speaker, when we look at the excise tax bill, for example, we see that it contains a number of provisions, because agricultural diesel, which is dyed diesel, gets special tax treatment. It is not taxed in the same way. We have the fiscal and legal tools to be able to target support measures and, at a lower cost to taxpayers, remove pressure and lift the lid on the most sensitive parts of the supply chain where rising diesel costs have the greatest impact, even on people who do not drive. We need to think about the people who walk, ride their bikes and take public transit. I have news for my colleagues: These people also eat, so we need to think about that. That is why the Bloc Québécois is making broad but targeted proposals that would have a significant impact on taxpayers’ purchasing power while being fiscally responsible. As I said, I do not understand why there is not unanimous support for this type of measure.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I do not want this motion to pass. Cutting the fuel tax will only help big oil companies, not regular people. These companies already make huge profits and get billions in public help. We need this tax money for health care and schools. If people need help with high fuel prices, the government should give them targeted support instead.”

“Mr. Speaker, like my colleague from Mirabel, I would like to extend my sincere congratulations to the new Premier of Quebec, Paul St‑Pierre Plamondon. I will point out that the Quebec National Assembly now has a majority of separatist members, if we add together the members of the Parti Québécois and Québec solidaire. That may be a good thing for the future. I would also like to congratulate the candidates elected in my region, in Saguenay. I am thinking in particular of Marie‑Karlynn, with whom I loved working, and my young friend Émile Simard, who has the same name as my son. A few people sent congratulations to my son yesterday after Émile Simard was elected in Dubuc. I am also thinking of my dear friend Jimmy Bouchard in Jonquière. I am really looking forward to working with him. I would also like to recognize the candidates who lost. People make friends in politics. I am particularly thinking of Yannick Gagnon of Coalition Avenir Québec, who lost the election in Jonquière. He is still a dedicated member of the community who cares deeply about making life better for the people in the Saguenay region. My hat goes off to him, and I hope that his future career will be everything he hopes for. Let us return to the motion. As I often say, it is Groundhog Day: The Conservatives’ love affair with the oil and gas sector continues to repeat itself. Everything is an excuse to advance the interests of the oil companies. There is a contradiction here: The Conservatives are using their opposition day to argue that we should provide more support to the oil and gas sector so that it can export more. Even with the rising cost of living, the Conservatives still see this as an opportunity to advance the interests of the oil companies. The crisis in the Strait of Hormuz is driving up the price of diesel right now, and the Conservatives see this as yet another opportunity to advance the interests of the oil companies. Perhaps they have managed to inspire the Liberals. As I will explain in my speech, so far, the world champions at advancing the interests of the oil companies have been the Liberals. Let us return briefly to the motion. Personally, as my colleague from Mirabel demonstrated very clearly, I do not believe that eliminating these taxes would help people who are being hit by higher diesel prices. Instead, as we know, it is the oil companies that will once again benefit from the handouts bestowed upon them by the government and the Conservative opposition. A number of experts have said so. I am thinking in particular of Luc Godbout, as well as Normand Mousseau from the Trottier Energy Institute. At the end of the day, when we take a closer look, who are the big winners when a tax on gasoline or diesel is eliminated? It is big oil. To me, it does not make sense to deprive the government of revenue in order to support the profiteers in the oil and gas sector. I do not see the logic in that. As we know, the needs are immense. Think about education and the health transfers, which are often lacking. A balanced federal budget is far from a certainty. The deficit is skyrocketing. I do not think we need to make matters worse by eliminating the diesel tax. Instead, as my colleague from Mirabel said very clearly, we need to find targeted measures to support the people who are hardest hit. Let us be clear: reducing government revenue so that everyone has to pay more, while increasing oil companies’ profits, is a very bad idea. That said, I want to address another issue. Let us talk about the federal government’s lavish generosity and shamelessness when it comes to oil and gas. I am going to share some staggering figures. Rest assured, they will evoke some strong feelings. Between 2021 and 2024, oil and gas companies raked in $131 billion in profits. Of that $131 billion in profits, $80 billion was paid out as dividends to oil and gas companies. I would like to point out that 80% of Canada’s oil and gas companies are owned by foreign interests. Of that 80%, approximately 60% are American. We are talking about $80 billion in dividends. That means that every year, $12.5 billion leaves Canada and goes to the United States. We are in a trade war. That is $12.5 billion flowing directly from Canada to the United States, based on the period from 2021 to 2024. In July of this year, Cenovus announced that it would post record profits for its second quarter. It posted a profit of $2.8 billion, four times as much as in 2025. What are we being told today? The Conservatives are once again proposing handouts for the oil and gas sector. Meanwhile, the government, with the support of the Conservatives, wants to make Canada an energy superpower. The Prime Minister has said so repeatedly. When we look at the situation, we have to ask where Canada’s energy exports are going. Between 70% and 80% of our energy exports go directly to the United States. We are in a tariff war with the U.S. The U.S. is our main customer when it comes to energy exports. One of the only products not subject to tariffs is oil. If we take a closer look at the export figures, we will see that, in 2025, 91% of our oil exports went directly to the United States. What is the federal government’s strategy? Its strategy is to say that we need to build oil and gas infrastructure so our economy can resist pressure from the United States. Who benefits from building this infrastructure, though? This is the outrageous part. New infrastructure benefits the greedy oil and gas companies that do not want to pay for it, and it also directly benefits Americans. The government is using public money to pay for oil and gas infrastructure for the profiteers in the energy sector. Ultimately, that benefits the Americans collecting dividends. I think that is as absurd as it gets. The economic sectors subject to tariffs are receiving little to no support from the government. We paid $34 billion for the Trans Mountain pipeline. Each and every one of us paid for it. The Leader of the Opposition had the decency to point out that oil and gas companies were corporate welfare recipients. I rarely agree with him, but he was right. These companies are making record profits, yet they do not want to pay for their infrastructure. What is more, the government is adding insult to injury by saying that it will fund another project, the Pacific link pipeline, which will cost about $43 billion. That is $34 billion spent on the Trans Mountain expansion project and $43 billion spent on the Pacific link pipeline. It is also important to note that, last year, the fossil fuel industry received $10 billion in subsidies. That brings the total up to about $85 billion. I am not talking about the construction of Trans Mountain; I am talking about the financial support provided by the federal government. This support amounts to $85 billion since 2020. It is clear that the federal government has made its bed. Its main goal in the tariff crisis is to support the only sector that is not subject to tariffs: oil. It is also the only sector that primarily serves Americans, since they are the majority owners of the oil and gas companies. Canada is investing billions of dollars in this industry. What the Conservatives are asking us to do today is to be even more generous and eliminate a tax. Once again, this would mean that taxpayers would end up footing the bill for these greedy companies. It is outrageous.”

“I do not support cutting the gas tax. The government should not spend $43 billion on a pipeline that mostly helps Americans. If we want to help people who need it, we should use that money to raise old age security by $110 a year instead.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is quite surprising to hear an elected official rise and say that there is a connection between giving consumers a break by reducing the tax on gasoline. It is quite surprising when we consider the context, knowing that this government is investing an obscene amount of money, billions of dollars, in the only sector that is not tariffed. If they really want to help the people who need it most, they should increase old age security by $110 a year instead of paying $43 billion for a pipeline. They should take that money and give it to the people who truly need it, instead of supporting an economic sector that generally benefits only Americans. A member must be pretty brainwashed to defend that kind of idea.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 10 of 100

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

  See full analysis →
• Personal attack
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Respect 87 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “A member must be pretty brainwashed”.

  See full analysis →

“I support targeted help, not broad fuel tax cuts. Cutting gas taxes helps big oil companies make record profits, not regular people. Canada is making a huge mistake by funding oil and gas instead of switching to clean energy.”

“Mr. Speaker, I have two quick things to say. First, we support targeted measures. My colleague from Mirabel made that clear earlier. As for what my colleague said in his preamble, he should look at Ontario. Taxes there were cut significantly. However, it is not taxpayers, not ordinary Canadians, who benefited, but the big oil and gas companies. The amount of support Canada is giving the oil and gas sector is obscene. Ten, 15 or 20 years from now, when people look back on this time, they will realize that this was one of Canada’s worst mistakes. Most countries, especially European countries, have embarked on an energy transition. Here, the government is doing the worst thing it can do, which is investing in oil and gas to support these people who are making record profits.”

“My party does support helping farmers who face high diesel costs. I want the member to explain which targeted measures could help farmers lower their production costs.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is always nice to listen to my colleague lay the groundwork for the kind of analysis that really is lacking here in the House when it comes to any of the issues surrounding the oil industry. In his question, my Conservative colleague seemed to imply that we were not in favour of helping farmers who are currently struggling because the diesel they need to harvest their crops now costs them twice as much. However, that is not the Bloc’s position; quite the contrary. Could my colleague tell us about the targeted measures we would agree to that would help farmers reduce their production costs?”

“I do not support cutting all fuel taxes. This mostly helps oil and gas companies get richer. We should use targeted help for the people who actually need it.”

“Mr. Speaker, we need to look at the targeted measures my colleague from Mirabel mentioned earlier. However, the government has yet to carry out an analysis. By introducing blanket measures and scrapping all taxes on diesel and gas, it is propping up the oil and gas companies. We must support the people, we must take a step back, and, above all, we must ensure that this type of measure does not end up allowing the oil and gas companies to become even richer.”

“The Conservatives always try to help oil companies. The government has already cut the gas tax, given more money to oil companies, and paid for a pipeline. None of this lowered gas prices for regular people. It only made profits go up for oil companies. I want the member to explain how his plan will actually fix this.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague’s speech, specifically the Conservative motion under debate today, is no different from the debates we have come to expect from them. I think almost all of the opposition days in the House have been Conservative opposition days seeking to benefit the oil companies. However, if we look at the reactions to international tensions in recent months, there has been pressure for a lower gas tax, which the Conservatives achieved because the Liberals gave it to them. There has been a really substantial increase in all possible federal subsidies for oil companies. Last week, the government even made a commitment to buy a new pipeline and build it at taxpayers’ expense. However, none of that has had any impact on prices at the pump. In fact, prices at the pump continue to rise. If we look closely, the only thing increasing is oil companies’ profits. Ordinary Canadians continue to pay more, despite the fact that the government is giving more money to oil companies. Does my colleague really think that his is the right solution?”

“The Leader of the Opposition suggested a Conservative government would stop Quebec's push for independence. History shows that is not true. Quebeckers still vote for leaders who want Quebec to be independent. I want him to admit that it is fair for a nation to want its own country.”

“Mr. Speaker, in his speech, the Leader of the Opposition implied that a Conservative government in Ottawa would dampen Quebec’s drive for independence. This raises several questions for me. Let us look at the facts rather than his speech: Yesterday, Quebeckers elected a Parti Québécois government, which obviously advocates for Quebec’s independence. Under Conservative leadership, from 2012 to 2014, a Parti Québécois government was also elected, one that advocated for Quebec’s independence. For the benefit of my Conservative colleague, I would like to add that the Bloc Québécois has never disappeared. The Bloc Québécois is still here. There have always been people fighting for Quebec to stand on its own two feet. My question is this: Can he not acknowledge that it is a legitimate aspiration for a nation to have its own country?”