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)

110 statements

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?

John Barlow, Foothills

Conservative

Linked statement

“Farmers and producers need to know what fuel will cost. Constantly changing fuel taxes makes life unpredictable. I want the government to take all taxes off fuel until Canada Day to save people money.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I think what our producers and our farmers want is predictability. While the Liberals continue to put these taxes on and take them off, there is unpredictability. We are asking the Liberals today to take all taxes off fuel from now until Canada Day to have that predictability and to save Canadians money now.

Pierre Poilievre, Leader of the Opposition

Conservative
“I want the House to pass our plan to lower diesel prices. Canadian diesel costs much more than diesel in the United States and around the world because of federal taxes. We should cut all federal taxes on diesel until July 1 and permanently end clean fuel rules and the industrial carbon tax. We should also speed up permits and give tax breaks to quickly build Canadian refineries, pipes, and storage, and build up our own fuel reserve. This will make food and everyday items cheaper and help keep Canada united.”
  • A repeated line

    “Including the industrial carbon tax and the clean fuel standard.”

    Said 10 times by 9 members since April 28.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by congratulating the new Premier of Quebec, Paul St‑Pierre Plamondon, all the candidates who won their races, and my old friend of 25 years, Éric Duhaime, who has been fighting for Quebeckers for so long and has made historic gains. Obviously, the Conservatives do not want a referendum on sovereignty, neither in Alberta, nor in Quebec, nor anywhere else. Ten years ago, under a Conservative government, there was no referendum on sovereignty. In fact, there was not even a sovereignty movement in Alberta. The Bloc Québécois had all but disappeared, and the Parti Québécois was defeated. Ten years later, there is a referendum looming in Alberta, and the new government in Quebec is threatening to hold another one. National unity is a prime minister’s primary responsibility, and as the future government, the Conservatives aim to unite Canadians through hope and the core principles of our country. We want to bring all Canadians together to create a truly united country. One way of doing this is to make life more affordable and help Canadians save money. Diesel is expensive at the moment. Even people who do not own a car or truck that runs on diesel are feeling the pinch, because every item they buy—whether it is groceries, clothing, furniture or anything else for their home—is transported in a truck or on a train that uses diesel fuel. Diesel prices have hit record highs over the last three weeks. Obviously, we are not going to blame the Prime Minister for the war in Iran or for the war between Russia and Ukraine. That is beyond his control. However, the price of diesel here in Canada is between 24¢ and 30¢ per litre higher than in the United States, and it is about 32¢ per litre higher than the world average. Every other country is grappling with the same wars in Iran and between Russia and Ukraine, yet they are not paying as much as we are here in Canada. Why is Canada paying more under this Liberal government? First, many hidden taxes are still embedded in the prices we see here in Canada. There are the clean fuel regulations, which add between six and seven cents per litre, according to government documents. Other experts say that the figure is more like 10¢ per litre. There is also the industrial carbon tax. The Liberals love to say that there is no consumer carbon tax, but when they tax the production of something, that obviously increases the cost to consumers, because those refineries have to add that to the price. The GST also still applies to diesel fuel, so that adds another 12¢ or so per litre. All of that feeds into the costs paid by our farmers, our truckers and other businesses that provide us with essentials, and that is one of the reasons prices are higher. Then we need to sell our oil to the United States to buy back the diesel they refine. The U.S. benefits while we pay the price. Obviously, we produce a lot of diesel here in Canada, but the problem is that the diesel produced in Canada is not available to all Canadians. We are paying foreigners a refining margin instead of keeping that money here at home. Lastly, we do not have a reserve of refined petroleum products. Today, the Conservatives are presenting a positive plan to save Canadians money, make our country more self-reliant and increase affordability. First, we are proposing eliminating all taxes on diesel until at least July 1. We are proposing eliminating some taxes permanently, like the industrial carbon tax and the clean fuel regulations. That would allow us to produce and supply diesel for Canadians more cheaply. Second, we are proposing emergency permitting, emergency pre-permitting and tax relief for businesses that invest in diesel infrastructure, refineries, storage and transportation here at home. That would allow businesses to invest that money now to build. In the United States, I found at least five examples of refineries that were built in less than three years. Some people say that it takes 15 or 20 years to build a refinery or to make small improvements to our energy infrastructure, but that is not true. It is a self-imposed limit. For example, British Columbia has to import diesel from the United States, even though we have the fourth-biggest reserves of diesel here at home. By lowering costs today and becoming more self-sufficient in the medium term, we will be able to protect our consumers and make groceries, clothing, furniture and other products more affordable here in Canada. We will also be able to safeguard our self-sufficiency. Our aim is to produce one million barrels a day within five years, to supply every Canadian market with Canadian diesel and to build up a strategic reserve. We would build up this reserve during periods when prices are at their lowest. That way, we would have it at our disposal when prices are higher. That is how we will ensure Canada remains affordable and secure, and that is how we will become masters in our own house. Before I begin, I would be remiss if I did not offer congratulations to the newly elected Premier of Quebec, Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, and the PQ. I also congratulate all others who were elected. In particular, I congratulate my friend of 25 years, Éric Duhaime, who made major gains in this election and has been fighting for Quebeckers his entire life. We wish him much success in the National Assembly. Obviously, we, as Conservatives, do not want a referendum on national unity in any province. We do not want one in Alberta or in Quebec. We want the country to be united. Unfortunately, we see that there is now a referendum in Alberta and there is a referendum threatened for the future in Quebec. About 10 years ago, there were no referendums to separate in any part of the country. There was no separatist movement in Alberta whatsoever. The PQ was defeated. The Bloc did not even have party status. Here we are, 10 years later, with one for sure and another possible referendum. These are in two of our most cherished provinces. The measure of the Prime Minister is how he can keep our country united. As a future prime minister, my mission will be to truly unite the country and to make all those who have lost faith in the country regain hope that they can have a great life, their hard work will pay off, young people will be able to afford homes and that every single province and its industries will be fully respected. That is the hope we offer to truly unite our country from coast to coast. One way to do it is to make our country affordable, independent and safe here at home. Our plan today is the diesel relief plan. It proposes to tackle the fact that we have diesel prices that are 24¢ to 30¢ a litre higher in Canada versus in the U.S. and the rest of the world. Our mission is to eliminate that gap, produce the equivalent of a million barrels of diesel every single day and supply every Canadian market with Canadian-made diesel. We have a plan to eliminate all federal taxes on the production and consumption of diesel to incentivize the fast construction of refineries, transportation and storage of diesel through 100% one-year expensing of investments and emergency permits, and to create a strategic petroleum reserve that would prepare us for moments just like this. This approach would bring down the cost of not just the diesel, but also everything that comes in a truck, such as food, groceries, appliances and clothes. Everything would be more affordable in a more autonomous country. Let us make Canada the most affordable, richest and most secure country anywhere on earth.

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.

Pierre Poilievre, Leader of the Opposition

Conservative
“I want the House to vote for our plan to lower diesel prices. We should permanently get rid of the industrial carbon tax and the clean fuel standard. We should also pause the excise tax and the GST until at least Canada Day. This would save Canadians about 20 cents a litre and help farmers, truckers, and people who heat their homes with diesel.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, our position is that we should permanently get rid of the industrial carbon tax, which applies to the upstream production of petroleum and the refining of diesel products. We should permanently get rid of the so-called clean fuel standard, which is a tax that drives up gas at the pump by at least six cents a litre, rising to 17¢ a litre. It should be gone forever. We propose to suspend until at least Canada Day the excise tax and the GST. The combined effect of that will be in the neighbourhood of 20¢ a litre, and that would reduce the costs for our truckers who bring us products, our farmers, our rural people who drive diesel-powered vehicles and people in Atlantic Canada and parts of Ontario who still heat with diesel. Everything is more expensive when we drive up the cost of diesel. I noticed that the member forgot to mention that Canadian diesel prices are 24¢ to 30¢ a litre more expensive than American and worldwide prices. That is a homemade problem, made by the government, for which the Conservatives have the solution. We ask them to vote for our plan for diesel price relief for all Canadians.

Elizabeth May, Saanich—Gulf Islands

Green
“Billions of dollars in government subsidies are going to gas projects owned by foreign companies, not Canadian ones. I want the leader of the official opposition to tell us if that bothers him.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Relevance 0 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure for me, as the leader of the Green Party of Canada, to be able to put a question to the leader of the official opposition. It is rare that we have this chance leader to leader. I wonder if the member would like to comment on the fact that so many billions of dollars of subsidies are going to projects that are primarily based in the United States. For instance, we hear a lot about Ksi Lisims’ LNG project that will be a floating LNG terminal. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Western LNG, which is, of course, Texas-owned and -based. The so-called LNG Canada operation is 40% Shell oil. Other than Shell, the next owners are Petronas from Malaysia, PetroChina and Korea’s state-owned gas company. There is nothing Canadian about it, except the name. Does this bother the leader of the official opposition?

Pierre Poilievre, Leader of the Opposition

Conservative
“Oil and gas companies should not need government money. They can make plenty of money on their own. They only need help now because the government adds too many rules and taxes. The government should get out of the way so these projects can create jobs and pay taxes.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member’s question was about subsidies. Canada’s oil and gas industry should be so wildly profitable that it does not need any subsidies. In fact, LNG Canada, the first project, which was approved by the previous Conservative government, did not require subsidies, even though it is the single biggest project in the history of the country at $40 billion. Why? It is because it is wildly profitable to take natural gas, which goes for $2.50 in Canada, and sell it for $25, 10 times more, in Asia. Why do we need subsidies now? It is because the Liberal government blocks these projects, ties them up in red tape, taxes them to a level that is too high, breaks our legs and then says we should thank them for giving us a crutch. In reality, we believe we should get out of the way and off the backs of our energy sector so that these projects are profitable, pay into the treasury, rather than take out, employ people and make us richer, make life more affordable and make us more autonomous here at home.

Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères

Bloc Québécois
“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.”
Official Hansard

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?

Pierre Poilievre, Leader of the Opposition

Conservative
“When Conservatives led the government, Canada was united and Quebec separation was not an active issue. We respected provincial powers and gave young people hope. Today, separation talk is back. We need a prime minister who can unite the country again.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, after 10 years of Conservative government, the Bloc Québécois did not even have official party status in the House of Commons. In Quebec, the Parti Québécois was in opposition. At that time, discussions about a referendum were not even happening, because the Conservative Party had managed to unite the country, as it always does. It had recognized the Quebec nation, restored to the provinces the powers that rightfully belonged to them, including the Quebec nation, and respected all Canadians. Young people also had the hope that they could buy a home, start a family and build a good life. In a climate of hope like that, the situation we face today did not exist. Unfortunately, we are now faced with two referendum initiatives: one that is very real and another that is being threatened. Now more than ever, we need a prime minister who can unite Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

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.

John Barlow, Foothills

Conservative
“The government's fuel rules do not help Canadian farmers. Almost three quarters of the carbon credits go to foreign fuel, mostly from the United States. High taxes and red tape are hurting our own producers instead.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to challenge my colleague’s comments about the benefits the Liberal government has brought forward, particularly for Canadians but certainly for Canadian farmers. It is much like the Liberals’ fabled buy Canada policies when, in fact, they are buying American. It is very similar to the Liberals’ fuel regulations. My colleague said this benefits Canadian farmers, but 73% of the carbon credits from the fuel regulations standards are going to imported fuel. This means that almost a billion dollars in credits from the Liberals’ fuel regulations are going to subsidize foreign imports into Canada, mainly from the United States. Would my colleague not agree that high taxes, red tape and a multitude of bureaucratic hoops for these processors and farmers to jump through are the reasons why the Liberals’ fuel regulations are not benefiting Canadian producers, and that there is a better solution?

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.

Elizabeth May, Saanich—Gulf Islands

Green
“Past government policies created huge hog farms in Manitoba to use up extra grain. Most of these pigs are shipped to the United States instead of feeding Canadians. These hog farms are now polluting and destroying Lake Winnipeg.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I did not expect to be speaking to the issue of pork in Manitoba, but I cannot help myself in responding to the hon. parliamentary secretary. The history there is fascinating. We should learn the lessons. It was Pierre Trudeau who killed the Crow rate, which made it harder for prairie farmers to ship out their grain. That led to a glut of grain on the Prairies, which meant asking, “What do we do with all of this grain?” They put it in mega hog barns, with thousands of sows in the same barn, and fed them the grain, because if they could not ship the grain out, they could ship the hogs out. Where did they go? They are not local food security for Manitoba. Only 10% are consumed in Canada. Most are shipped out. Millions of live pigs are shipped to the United States, bringing us back to the same argument we are making here. They are not processed in Canada. Live pigs are sent to Iowa, where they are fattened up, fed lots of drugs and slaughtered. Meanwhile, the hog barns have so contaminated Lake Winnipeg that it is dying.

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.

Elizabeth May, Saanich—Gulf Islands

Green
“I disagree with the member about why this happened. Towns in Manitoba tried to ban mega barns because they hurt local farmers and made communities worse to live in. A former NDP premier took away their power to stop those barns.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to reflect on what the member said. That is the situation today. I am looking at how this evolved, and I recall how many municipalities, local governments, across Manitoba passed bylaws to stop having mega barns put in their communities, making life less livable and hurting local farmers. They were stopped by a draconian law from former NDP premier Gary Doer, who took away the right of local municipalities to ban these productions in their communities.

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.

Jeremy Patzer, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley

Conservative
“High diesel prices are hurting small family farms the most. One farmer expects his fuel costs to go up by $50,000 next year, and he cannot pass that cost on. How does the member expect him to pay for that?”
  • A repeated line

    “Farmers cannot pass that cost on.”

    Said 3 times by 2 members since September 22.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member is from the Prairies, and so am I. He knows that the backbone of the prairie economy is the family farm. Family farms tend to be a little smaller than the bigger commercial farms out there, but small family farms are probably being hit the hardest when it comes to skyrocketing diesel prices, because the margins they are operating with are very tight. One farmer talked to me about the price from last year and what he is planning for for next year, and he said he is looking at a difference of between $40,000 and $50,000 on his small family farm just in the cost of diesel for him to put the crop in the ground and get the harvest off. He has to plan ahead, and he is penciling in a difference from last year to next year of $50,000. What does the member think this farmer is going to do? He cannot pass that cost on. He has to absorb that cost. That is why we have this motion today. What does the member have to say about that?

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.

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