SoVote

Mar/22/22 10:54:04 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, this is one of the most important challenges that we as a government have to tackle. When it comes to our most vulnerable seniors, we needed to make sure that every Canadian retires in dignity and that is why our government moved to reverse the Conservative change that increased the age of eligibility for retirement to 67 years. We lowered that back down to age 65, which gives thousands of dollars to seniors right when they need it at retirement. We have also moved to increase the OAS and the GIS to make sure that seniors have the resources they need. Importantly, and this is crucial, we are indexing those measures to inflation, which means that, as inflationary pressures grow, those benefits will grow as well.

128 words

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Mar/22/22 10:55:05 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member for Burnaby North—Seymour's thoughtful response to this motion this morning. I appreciate his focus on measures that would address affordability. If we are talking about affordability in this place, we should be talking about affordability for those who need it most and recognizing that it is Canadians with disabilities who are disproportionately living in poverty. Up to 40% of those living in poverty across the country are Canadians with disabilities. I wonder if the member would comment on the need to go further and to fast-track a Canada disability benefit or any other measure he would put forward in order to meaningfully address affordability for a group of people across the country who need it most.

126 words

Mr. Terry Beech

Mar/22/22 10:55:54 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for raising the issue of Canadians with disabilities. I have members of my own family who are in that situation and there are many families in my constituency of Burnaby North—Seymour who are also in that situation. The member opposite is correct that we need to do more to make sure that individuals with disabilities have the supports they need, not just the financial supports but the accessibility supports and the ability for many individuals with accessibility issues to be strong members of our workforce. Canada does not want to have any members of our team sitting on the bench when it is not necessary to do so. I would be very happy to sit down with that member to discuss any ideas he has on how we can go further. I can guarantee that any funding for programs that are going to help vulnerable Canadians with disabilities, who are also trying to deal with an inflationary crisis, would not be helped by the motion that is on the table today. In fact, it would cut revenue that could be invested in programs that could help Canadians with disabilities.

197 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Mar/22/22 10:57:27 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could provide his thoughts on the issue of what is happening around the world with regard to inflation, and possibly even the impact on oil prices, more specifically, because of what is taking place in Ukraine.

43 words

All Topics

Mr. Terry Beech

Mar/22/22 10:57:47 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, certainly I do not think anyone in this House on any side or any aisle would dispute the impact of the illegal war in Ukraine on energy prices. That, of course, is putting further pressure on a global inflationary environment that has seen pressures from supply-chain bottlenecks, that has seen pressures from climate change, that has seen pressures from increased demand on hard goods as opposed to services during the pandemic and, of course, seen pressure from the reopening of the global economy from the pandemic. While the member for Abbotsford is correct that inflation in Canada is currently at 5.7% and that we need to work to reduce that inflation, I would remind him that our health-based and economic-based policy has led to better results than our neighbour's results in the U.S., where the inflation rate is at 7.5%. Of course Canada's average is less than the OECD, which is at 6.5%, and lower than the G20 average, which is at 6.1%. Therefore, in all, through measures that our government is taking, Canada is working to tackle the inflation crisis and to improve affordability for Canadian families.

200 words

All Topics

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

Mar/22/22 10:59:11 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the cheering crowd has me feeling generous, so I will be sharing my time with the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue. The member for Abbotsford's motion reminded me of a university class I used to teach on populism. A fairly simple definition of populism is proposing simplistic solutions to complex problems. Inflation is a complex problem to which people can propose simplistic solutions. Let us unpack that together. One good approach to analyzing populism is to look at populist themes, which I find even more interesting. What are those? A stock populist theme is telling people we are going to put more money in their pockets. Beware of politicians who say that. It is not as though public services pay for themselves. These are tough times. COVID‑19 put our health care system through the wringer. We need health transfers, and that money does not grow on trees. It comes from taxes. Nevertheless there will always be politicians who say they are going to put more money back in people's pockets. That is a populist theme. Another populist theme involves denying global warming. Some people simply want to keep things as they are and not make any effort, because they believe global warming does not exist, so the oil and gas sector is not to blame. People who study populism often see this type of discourse. To my great delight, both of these populist themes have been included in the motion moved by my Conservative colleagues. We are not in an election period, but I already have concerns about the electoral intent of provoking discontent among the population. It seems to me that that is what this motion is all about. I say this because that kind of discourse is completely inconsistent. During the last election campaign, the leader of the Conservative Party came to Quebec and said that he would respect Quebec's jurisdictions. This motion proposes that the House reduce the GST, which is perfectly feasible, because the GST is federal. It also proposes reducing the QST, the Quebec sales tax, which I think is entirely impossible. The House of Commons can adopt as many motions as it likes, but it cannot change Quebec's laws. Suggesting to Canadians that Ottawa can reduce the QST is pure fiction. This is really just a figure of speech, a kind of populism. The other thing the motion calls for is a 5% reduction of the price of gasoline at the pumps. That may appear to be interesting and attractive. It is easy to understand and is just another populist theme. In the meantime, their motion was tabled on March 17 and gas prices have already gone down by 5%. In fact, the purpose of the motion is to use inflation to rally the discontented. Then the Conservatives also talk about a temporary reduction. I wonder what they mean by “temporary”. In the context of fighting climate change, when we really should not be giving people any incentive to consume more gas but instead maybe encourage them to use an electric vehicle, I wonder what temporary means. The motion says that “the House call[s] on the government to immediately provide relief at the pumps to all Canadians”. If that is not an attempt to get people to consume more oil, then I do not know what is. Another key aspect of my colleagues' motion is a very Conservative intention to get everyone but the oil companies to pay. The oil companies are the main beneficiaries of the increased price of crude oil. It is not the government who is pocketing the huge profits being made at the extraction stage with the increased price of oil, it is the oil companies. However, that is not all. Oil companies also pocket exorbitant profits at the refining stage. The refining margin, or the amount oil companies charge to refine crude oil, has quadrupled in one year, rising from $1.15 U.S. per barrel in February 2021 to $4.40 U.S. today. We might wonder who benefits here. Certainly it is not the government that benefits from the rising price of oil and refinery costs. According to the Conservatives, the government is never generous enough towards the oil companies. The best way to protect consumers from the oil companies that are fleecing them is to ensure that the oil industry contributes to relief measures for Canadians who bear the burden these companies have created. Just yesterday, the Conservatives opposed the idea of asking the oil companies for a special contribution to finance measures that would help Canadians deal with inflation. With today's motion, the Conservatives are proposing that all taxpayers contribute to the relief for gas consumers, whether through taxes or service cuts. To put it bluntly, that is a very bad idea. In conclusion, I want to say that being irrational is the worst thing that a politician can do. Being rational is essential in politics. We must be aware of where our own interests lie, because many things can make us act irrationally. Love makes us irrational. I am irrational when it comes to my partner. I often forget my own interests. Allow me to explain by referring to French singer Johnny Hallyday. Although I am not a big fan, some of my colleagues may know him. Some might say that Johnny Hallyday sounds a little irrational when he cries out about his feelings of love. That is the kind of irrationality that comes with love. I sense something irrational when I hear my Conservative friends shouting, “build a pipeline”. The background on my phone is a photo of my son and my partner. On my computer, it is a Quebec flag. I am also irrational when it comes to Quebec. When I look at my Conservative colleagues' computers, I always see “I love oil and gas”. That is irrational. Much like I have an indescribable love for my partner, the Conservatives have an irrational love for oil, and they cannot get out from under that spell. This irrational love can make our political processes ineffective because the oil lobby is given too much weight. Let us see what is coming down the pike. Oil Change International estimates that the federal government invested $78 billion to support the oil and gas industry in 2019–20 alone. In 2015–17, it invested $111 billion. Export Development Canada hands out $14 billion to the oil and gas sector every year. We paid $21 billion for a pipeline. At the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, I am currently studying carbon capture and sequestration strategies. Everyone agrees that they do not work. However, billions of dollars will be invested in them. Moreover, the Conservative Party is telling us today that if we want to solve the inflation problem, we might have to give the oil companies more money. That is the epitome of irrationality. What I am hearing from the Conservatives is all the more shocking because the Liberal Party is caught up in this crazy fossil fuels spiral and it, too, feels compelled to add to it. Canada is therefore trapped in the oil industry's stranglehold and it cannot escape it. Everything is analyzed from the oil industry's perspective. The Conservatives are analyzing the crisis in Ukraine solely in terms of the oil industry. It is outrageous. Now inflation is only being analyzed from the oil industry's perspective. This is very dangerous. I therefore call on my Conservative colleagues to see the light at the end of the tunnel and put an end to this toxic relationship they have with oil. I am doing this for their own good.

1303 words

All Topics

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

Mar/22/22 11:09:08 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we know that times are tough for Canadians. Costs are rising, and it is hard to make ends meet. I would like to ask my colleague if he has any ideas for the federal government to help Canadians pay their bills during these difficult times. Does he have any suggestions for helping people make ends meet at the end of the month?

65 words

Mr. Mario Simard

Mar/22/22 11:09:47 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the first thing the federal government can do would be to respect its areas of jurisdiction. We can see that the NDP has reached an agreement with the Liberals. We will have dental and drug coverage, which is not the responsibility of the federal government, but hey, if it makes them happy. Perhaps the federal government could respect its areas of jurisdiction and the purchasing power of seniors, the only ones who have been left out throughout the pandemic. That might be a good thing. If we want to fight inflation, we need to support the most vulnerable people. That does not seem to be a priority in the Liberal-NDP alliance, but that is another matter.

120 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Mar/22/22 11:10:30 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, to pick up on the theme of love, I have a love for our country, Canada. The government needs to provide many support programs, whether they are for seniors, such as the 10% increase for those 75 and older or the GIS increases or the many other types of programs that the government needs to provide to support real people in tangible ways. I wonder if my colleague could continue his thoughts on how important it is to have revenues to provide these programs, and how the revenue comes from a multitude of sources, including oil and gas.

100 words

Mr. Mario Simard

Mar/22/22 11:11:13 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. I rarely agree with my colleague from Winnipeg North, but I agree with him. We need revenue to support seniors. I can easily find some revenue for him. If we stopped supporting the oil and gas industry, we would have some revenue. From 2015 to 2017, $111 billion was allocated to support the most polluting sector in the world. We must reconsider this. From 2018 to 2020, $78 billion was allocated. Maybe if we ended all these oil and gas subsidies, we could use that money to do something more logical, by which I mean increase health transfers. I invite members to think about that. That is a good starting point.

120 words

Mr. Bernard Généreux (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, CPC)

Mar/22/22 11:12:05 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, logically speaking, if not for oil, we would be standing naked in the House of Commons. Oil is used for many things besides gas for our cars. We were lucky we had oil to get the goods we needed to fight the pandemic. That said, my colleague comes from Lac-Saint-Jean, an area far from major centres. I am guessing that the people of Lac-Saint-Jean need gas to get around. Paying 5% less for gas would be a good thing. What would my colleague propose as an alternative?

93 words

Mr. Mario Simard

Mar/22/22 11:12:44 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the one thing that should never be said to someone from Saguenay is that they are from Lac-Saint-Jean. It is a huge no-no. It is just not done. I hardly think that we would all be going around naked if not for oil. I do not know what nonsense my colleague is talking there. I have often heard the Conservatives say that, if not for oil, we would all go back to living naked in the forest. Oil is not the basis of human evolution. The Greeks did not have oil, but they were not all going around naked, as far as I know. These days, we have electric vehicles. The alternative I would suggest is that my colleagues consider the idea that oil companies should do their part. Is it not up to the oil companies to reduce their profit margins? Why did they not think about that rather than reducing the government's fiscal capacity? It is their problem, not mine.

168 words

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ)

Mar/22/22 11:13:48 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, unlike my colleague from Jonquière, I am proud to say that I come from a united region, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, and I am equally proud to be from both Témiscamingue and Abitibi. In fact, there are some great debates about where one region begins and the other one ends. I am extremely proud of this. We had a lot of snow this winter, but fortunately the snowbanks are beginning to melt, and good weather is returning. This has been a source of inspiration for me this week, as I go about my business. When I heard that we would be debating gas prices, I was told not to worry because sometimes it is worth listening to the Conservatives on energy and the environment, since their solutions are often precisely the opposite of what needs to be done. This might be the case here. It is a well-known fact that the current spike in gas prices is partly related to the economic sanctions imposed on Russia. Lowering the price at the pump might sound like a good idea, but it is important to understand that doing so will in no way address the real problem. Of course, this will not solve the problem of inflation. What are we talking about? The motion proposes a 5% reduction, which represents about 8¢ or 9¢ on the price of a litre, which I saw advertised as $1.84 on my way here this morning. Remember the outrage when another space had to be added to the signs at gas stations because the price per litre had risen to over $1? Someone will have to explain the other 80¢ and how we got to $1.84. Obviously, that is the oil companies' profit margins. Does this motion solve the problem? Not at all. However, I do agree with people when they tell me they are feeling the pinch in their wallets. I empathize with them. Plus, knowing that this price increase could very well affect food prices makes me empathize even more. This price increase will also affect the cost of plane tickets and other consumer goods. Runaway inflation is a major worry. It affects everything, and it calls for comprehensive measures to address it. We have to find solutions that will strengthen our economy and eliminate subsidies for dirty western Canadian oil, or as Barack Obama put it, the tar sands. The Bloc Québécois has been saying for some time that Canada needs to rid itself of its reliance on fossil fuels, make choices, and adopt Quebec's innovations, but the Canadian government continues to subsidize western Canadian oil and is in fact still doing so. Quebeckers know this choice does not make sense for the future of Quebec's youth. This week, I read what Quebec's Minister of Finance, Éric Girard, had to say about cutting the QST on gas and diesel. He said it was a bad idea. Quebec is not ashamed of its push to electrify transportation because we headed in that direction a long time ago. This is actually a fantastic opportunity, a gold mine even. Apparently the Conservatives are admitting to us that they made bad choices in the past and that the only way to address these sudden jolts to the Canadian economy is oil independence. The future is making that clear, and so is what is happening in Ukraine. Quebec has made investments in knowledge building, because it cares about the future of the planet at heart and has green energy available. As a result, all of its industries are carving out a prominent place for themselves. My colleague will be pleased to hear that this week, the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology is wrapping up its study on critical and strategic minerals. I am very proud to say that we heard about major advances in the development of value chains. I am talking about batteries for electric vehicles, chemical industries returning to Quebec with international investments, and growth in the aerospace and heavy-duty vehicle industries, as well as the quantum industry, the pharmaceutical industry, and many others. The future is not in oil. It is in the green transition. Quebec is benefiting because it has been preparing for this for a long time. Every SME that is part of the economic fabric of Quebec has repeatedly said that we must ignore what is going on and categorically reject the industrial shift that is happening around the world. I am hearing some regrets here. Carbon capture and sequestration is a mirage that the Conservatives are desperately hanging onto in a bid to keep us in the 20th century for as long as possible. It is not a real solution. The longer we stay entrenched in the economy of the last century, the greater the shock will be because our shift will come too late. The Conservatives keep resorting to sophistry by making arguments that are logically flawed. That is what this motion is about. The Conservatives have moved this motion for debate so that they can repeat the same arguments over and over until they are believed. That makes no sense. Repeating a bad idea over and over will not make it good. They want to abolish the carbon tax, jump-start Canada's oil industry and develop pipelines. We believe that we must continue with the energy transition at a slow and steady pace. The transition cannot be interrupted every time the price of oil goes up, no matter how high it goes. Listening to the Conservatives would be like changing a ship's course based on the ocean's waves. Good luck to anyone trying to navigate like that. I want to point out to Quebeckers that the federal carbon tax is imposed on provinces that have not yet set a price for each tonne of carbon they produce. Which provinces have yet to do so? It will shock no one to hear that the stragglers are Alberta and Ontario, but not Quebec, since we have our own carbon market. On April 1, the price will go up from $40 to $50 a tonne, and that will translate to a 2.32‑cent increase at the pump. Compared to the 30‑cent jump a week ago, that is pretty minor. The carbon tax does not reduce purchasing power. It is simply intended to encourage Canadians to make greener choices. The energy transition is both vital and economically viable. Quebeckers are increasingly making green choices in their investments by entrusting their nest egg to companies that honour agreements and fight climate change. I have been doing it myself for the past 15 years or so, and I must say that those investments have been the most profitable ones over that period, so imagine how they will do in the future. Unfortunately, investment funds in Canada have still been slow to divest from fossil fuels. Few funds have a policy of excluding fossil fuel companies. However, plenty of companies honour the agreements or have made consistent investments to help keep temperatures from rising by more than 1.5 degrees Celsius, like climate science tell us we need to do. There is so much at stake, and the transition needs to happen now in our pension funds, which are still packed with fossil fuel investments. I urge my colleagues to take a closer look at this and to write to their banking professionals. That would be a much more meaningful solution than lowering a tax. The Conservatives are a predictable bunch. Whatever the problem is, their solution is always the same: helping the oil companies. On their last opposition day, they put forward a motion saying that the best way to help Ukrainians is not to help Ukrainians, but to increase oil sands production. That is frankly bizarre. We know very well that this would have no impact in the short term. This week, the measure that the Conservatives are proposing to help people deal with runaway inflation in all areas is not to help people, but rather to target one area, which is oil again. Today's motion is a false solution to a real problem. I have personally made the green transition. I bought a 100% electric vehicle. I am making a little heartfelt plea. One of the issues is not what it cost me. When President Zelenskyy addressed the House, I took the opportunity to attend in person. It was a bit foolhardy because it was not very warm out, it was a long distance to travel, and the charging stations are very far apart. I had a bad experience. I came over to the Ontario side, and in Mattawa, whose residents I salute, in passing, I found out the two charging stations there were not working. In the end, I did not get home until 7:15 in the morning. That is the problem. If we truly want an energy transition, we will have to have high gas prices. There is no harm in sparking interest in a genuine energy transition and encouraging people to purchase electric vehicles. Also, since everything in life is based on supply and demand, there is a basic economic principle at play here. The higher the demand for electric vehicles, the more companies in the United States and around the world will offer electric vehicles in Quebec, because demand will be high. The more tax credits are available for the purchase of an electric vehicle, the higher demand will be. That is an advantage. Speaking of supply and demand, I want to close by saying that in my view, the more electric vehicles are available, the less demand there will be for gas, and the less demand there is for gas, the more prices will drop. That may be the solution, rather than cutting social programs and taking money out of Canadians' pockets.

1669 words

All Topics

Mr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC)

Mar/22/22 11:23:54 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech, although I am definitely at odds with his conclusions. Given the fact that there is an immense amount of tax already on gasoline, would it not make sense to just remove the GST for the folks who do not have an electric car or for those who have to drive great distances? The member mentioned that he took his electric car to Ottawa. I have driven to Ottawa from my riding several times, but I do not think that an electric car would be an efficient way to get here. For the folks who are not able to afford an electric car or are unable to take public transit, would pulling the GST off not be the minimum we can do to ensure that we are not paying two dollars a litre for gasoline in this country?

147 words

Mr. Sébastien Lemire

Mar/22/22 11:24:40 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, the answer is simple. The answer is no. Normally, it takes me six hours to drive to Ottawa. Driving an electric car required me to form new habits. Before I can get to where I am going, I have to remember to plug in my car. While waiting, I can buy a sandwich at the corner store to fuel myself up. Then I can drive off with enough energy to last me a while. After that, it is time to eat. It is just a matter of habit. The real issue is the availability of charging stations in rural areas. The federal government has a responsibility in this respect. Fast charging stations must be accessible. My colleague could travel long distances if he had access to fast charging stations. The federal government could invest in such stations. If there are stations all along the way, it will make a big difference.

156 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Mar/22/22 11:25:35 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is in fact investing in charging stations in Canada. However, in good part, the debate is about the issue of inflation, and one of the things we have to take into consideration is the world dynamic. What is taking place, unfortunately in a very horrific fashion, can be witnessed every day on the news. We are seeing first-hand what is happening in Ukraine, and that has had a severe impact on the price of oil worldwide. I am wondering if my colleague could provide his thoughts with regard to that aspect. We are seeing oil increase as dramatically as it has been because of what is taking place in Europe.

117 words

All Topics

Mr. Sébastien Lemire

Mar/22/22 11:26:26 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, Ukraine certainly is a sensitive issue now. It is likely that one of the reasons for the Russian government's invasion was not to gain access to oil, but to take control of Ukraine's critical and strategic mineral deposits. The energy transition is going on worldwide. We need critical and strategic minerals to build tomorrow's electric vehicles. As we know, China controls a huge part of the market. Russia wants its share of the pie, but Canada can take action to forestall it. We are talking about economic sanctions on Russia. The best way to reduce our dependence is to make sure we no longer need oil because the industry has changed. We want all modes of transportation and energy sectors to be electrified. There are mines in my riding that want to become 100% electric. I think that is part of the solution, because some of these mines can consume up to 100,000 litres of diesel a day. That makes us more and more dependent on Russia and the financial problems that lead to war. Let us shift the paradigm and make a genuine energy transition. I think that will also be a solution for peace.

202 words

All Topics

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Mar/22/22 11:27:56 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue for his speech and his calls for action concerning the climate crisis. If members of Parliament were really serious about addressing affordability and climate change, what could they do with the $18 billion that goes toward subsidies for fossil fuels? How could we use that money to make life more affordable for Canadians and Quebeckers?

71 words

Mr. Sébastien Lemire

Mar/22/22 11:28:43 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from the Green Party for his question and remarks. Unfortunately, we have given oil companies much more than that. That is part of the problem. What we can do is accelerate the transition. Let us take that money and invest it in every region of Canada to develop innovation. We must look to innovation and rely on the bright people at our colleges and universities to find alternatives. In my opinion, that is part of the solution.

86 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

Mar/22/22 11:29:18 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to speak to the motion today. I commend the sponsor of the motion for putting some concrete ideas on the table about how we could try to provide relief to Canadians who are living through very difficult economic times. That certainly has been a focus of the work of the NDP over the last number of years. I will not belabour the history of our attempts to make sure that working people and vulnerable people in Canada have what they need in order to live a life of dignity, but it has certainly been a focus of ours through the pandemic. That is why I think we have seen a real willingness on the part of New Democrats to come to this place with the understanding that while we may not have liked the outcome of the election, we respect what Canadians did in building a Parliament with the expectation that parliamentarians would come here to work on their behalf and try to navigate the Parliament that they elected and try to come to agreement on concrete policy ideas that would make a difference in their lives. That does not mean that every idea put on the table will find agreement in this place, but I think we are doing our job well when we take those proposals seriously and make counter-proposals in the event that we do not like the initial offering. I think Canadians enjoy seeing their parliamentarians engaged in that kind of work. There is no question that these are difficult economic times. I had the opportunity yesterday to speak to some of the reasons that Canadians are having such difficult times and why, even sometimes in the face of good-news announcements about the economy, we are not seeing that news translating into financial and economic security for the many Canadians who are worried about losing their jobs in an economy that still needs more workers. We hear there is a labour shortage, but many Canadians are living with pretty serious job insecurity. They are already either out of work, working reduced hours or concerned about the future of their industry. That is true for industries that have been affected by the pandemic. We could think of the tourism and travel industry, the entertainment industry and others that are still reeling from the impacts of the pandemic and wondering what they might look like in the future. It also because of climate change. Many Canadians see the impacts of climate and extreme weather events on supply chains and understand the need for the Canadian economy to become more sustainable if we are to prevent the worst scenarios of climate change. Canadians are right to wonder about their own individual place in that and the meaning of those changes for their families. That all comes back to what I said my opening remarks, when I said it is incumbent upon us as elected representatives to work in good faith to find solutions and create a path that gives Canadians a better sense of certainty about where the economy is heading so that they can better plan their individual futures and the futures of their families and neighbourhoods. The question before us today is in light of rising prices in this intense period of inflation that we have embarked upon and what that means for Canadians who are struggling with income and job security and rising prices. What can we do to provide some relief? We have talked many times about longer-term things that the government ought to be doing. Certainly we need to see policy action in the housing market, but that situation is not going to change overnight. It would be very hard to affect the affordability of housing overnight, but that does not mean there are not things we could be doing right now to put us on the path toward lowering the cost of housing. We certainly need to see better action in that area. It is sad that we are so far away from an effective housing policy in Canada, but one thing the government could and should be doing right now, and New Democrats are working hard to get the government to do it, is just ensure that the public funds that we do spend now to build affordable housing actually build affordable housing. Of course, the definition of affordability in the national housing strategy has been a barrier to that, because the way the Liberals initially chose to define housing affordability has actually kept so-called affordable housing out of the reach of far too many Canadians. One thing we could do is change that definition to make sure that the projects that are receiving public funds do in fact create housing that is truly affordable for those who find themselves in the greatest housing need. That is something we could be doing in the longer term. As well, the NDP ran on child care many times. We were always told by the Liberals that it was unrealistic and could not be done, that there was so much jurisdictional negotiating to do that the provinces would never get behind it and it was not the role of the federal government. Some Liberals may be nodding because they remember these lines from the 2015 campaign, when they repeated them ad nauseam. They may remember them from the subsequent Parliament, where for four years, in a majority government, they chose to repeat those lines rather than to get to work and do something. What we found, when they found the political will after years of pressure from the NDP, from civil society and from Canadian parents who knew better and needed the help, was that they were actually able to conclude those deals rather quickly. What is remaining is for them to cement that in legislation to make sure those things cannot be undone in the way that a Conservative government subsequently undid the Canada health accord arrangement. Then to their shame, the Liberals chose to perpetuate that by not convening new rounds of negotiations on a Canada health accord and instead went around signing bilateral deals. Are there things the government could be doing to create a context in three, five or 10 years where some of the price pressure on Canadian households would be reduced? Absolutely, there are. Another important place where Canadian households are suffering is dental care, because too many Canadians do not have coverage or the money to be able to pay for dental care. Someone told me a story earlier today about how their brother, who had a decent job but did not have dental care, had to move back in with his parents as an adult because the money he had to borrow in order to get his mouth fixed meant that he could not live independently anymore and he was going to have to remain living with his parents for some time until his financial situation improved. The government can work on that area right now to bring those costs down for Canadians into the future, next year and the year after. There is still the question of whether government could do something that would have a truly immediate impact, and that is the proposal we find ourselves discussing today. In this case, the Conservatives have proposed lifting the GST off of the price of gas at the pump. Again we have a concrete proposal that can provide immediate effect, but we have to ask whether this is the right proposal and whether it is going to have all of the right consequences. I would first say that part of the issue I have with this proposal is that it really prioritizes reducing the price on just oil and gas. That is only one of the issues that are confronting Canadians in this difficult time. I think we want to try to find financial relief for Canadians that is not simply about putting more emphasis on oil and gas when we know, in the face of the climate crisis, that we need to de-emphasize the role of oil and gas in our economy. That is one flag that goes up in respect of this proposal. Another flag that goes up from the point of view of equity is that while many Canadians rely on cars to get to and from work and to drop off their kids and pick them up from school, not all Canadians do that. There are other Canadians who are not using a car, sometimes because they cannot afford it and sometimes because they have made a choice to use other means of transportation, whether active transportation or public transportation. There are seniors who do not drive because their eyesight is not up to it and they have had their licence revoked or they have made the decision themselves not to drive anymore. These people are also experiencing these very real cost pressures, so if we are going to provide immediate financial relief, it is important to find something that can apply to as large a category of people as possible and is sure to capture the most vulnerable. That is not to say that it has to be limited to the most vulnerable, but it certainly ought to capture them. I think we have to look in the mirror and wonder if we are really getting that balance right. That is a very important consideration. The other thing I would say is this: While I think that tax relief is a mechanism can sometimes be appropriate, I would like to propose an amendment near the end of my speech on this motion, and I would be remiss if I did not think that this motion coming from the Conservatives is part of a larger project to always find a way to simply blame government when we know that there are a lot of other things that are driving cost pressures. High prices at the gas pump are not a new thing. Oil and gas companies have been finding ways and pretexts to raise the price at the pump for years. Sometimes they pertain to, in this case, a global crisis that is well outside the immediate control of the Canadian government, but sometimes a long weekend is good enough for them to jack up prices. Tax relief on the cost at the pump without any further guarantee that prices would remain low and that those savings would be transferred to the consumer raises the question of whether oil and gas companies would simply see this as another reason to raise their own prices in order to capture that extra bit of revenue, instead of having it go back to consumers. While I am glad to see a real proposal come out of the Conservative Party, and I might hazard to say it is the first in this Parliament, I think those are all reasons that we do not think this proposal is quite on the mark. What I do think might be on the mark and still within the scope of this motion, because it is about providing tax relief on an energy product in the context of significant inflation, would be to instead see the lifting of the GST not at the price on the pump but on home heating, because that is something that applies to everyone. While I respect that driving one's car, whether it is for work or for other reasons, is well integrated into the lives of many Canadians, and this is true for me at home, there is a little more flexibility for people on how much they drive and how often they drive than there is on whether they heat their home. If we are living in Canada in the winter, we are going to be heating our homes. It does not matter if we are a vulnerable senior who can no longer drive. It does not matter if we have made the choice to use public transportation or active transportation and it does not matter if we are using an electric car: We are going to be heating our homes. If we are serious about trying to provide widespread relief to Canadians and if we are serious about ensuring that this is not just another way to talk about oil and gas in Parliament because some people feel that makes the government feel uncomfortable or because it is a nice thing to say to lobbyists from the oil and gas industry when they come visit our offices, then I think a proposal around home heating is a better way to go. Of course, this idea was touted for a long time by Jack Layton, and as far as we are concerned, it is a bit of unfinished business. There are a lot of other essential goods that the GST does not apply to because we recognize that Canadians simply cannot go without certain things and we think it is reasonable to withhold charging the GST on those things. I think home heating is another example of how that can be done. There is another thing I would add, and I am going to speak from the Manitoba experience here as I am not an expert on public utilities across Canada. In the Manitoba context, if a public utility wants to raise rates, they have to go through a public process. They have to make submissions to the public utilities board. They cannot just wantonly raise their rates, unlike oil and gas companies at the pump. By withholding the GST on home heating, not only would we have a tax relief measure that would apply more broadly across the board, but we would also have better assurance that companies will not simply make up the difference and take that revenue for themselves while charging the consumer more, because, at least in some parts of the country, the companies that might consider doing that would have go through a process of public review in order to raise the prices. I think this proposal, which I am going to formally move shortly, is better in that regard. It is better in that it actually captures more people. I think it is more likely to provide real relief to some of Canada's most vulnerable, while also still providing meaningful relief to Canada's middle class, which is also really struggling through this time of inflation. It is a better proposal because we have more reason to expect that tax relief will not simply be eaten up by companies raising their prices. It is also a better proposal because it does not prejudice any one particular type of energy. There are people who heat their homes with renewable energy. There are people who heat their homes with electricity. There are different ways of heating a home, so this is not focused specifically on oil and gas. It can also continue to benefit Canadians as we transition toward a lower-carbon economy. It is not a proposal that predicates tax relief upon the persistent use of fossil fuels. It recognizes that people are using fossil fuels to heat their homes. It provides tax relief to them anyway, but it does not build oil and gas into the tax relief remedy. I think that is important in the context of figuring out how Canada can provide meaningful help to Canadians in this difficult time, while continuing to honour our very real and important commitment to doing our part to ensure that climate change does not run away on us and cause even more hurt, turmoil and economic dislocation than it is already likely to do. Those are all the reasons that I am glad to be having this debate in the House today. I have said before that the New Democrats are here to work in the spirit of collaboration with anyone here prepared to work with us to do things that we believe are in the best interests of Canadians. That should come as no surprise to anyone, particularly on this day, when I think the New Democrats have proven that we are prepared to work with people. We do that with eyes wide open. Our eyes would be similarly wide open in working with the Conservatives on improving this motion, and that is something that we are prepared to do. We will continue to be prepared to work with anyone in the House who is prepared to work with us to make a difference in the lives of Canadians. That is what we are here to do. It is what Canadians expect of us. It is not just what Canadians expect of the New Democrats; it is what they expect of every member elected to this chamber. It is in that spirit that I move, seconded by the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, that the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the words “provide relief” and substituting the following: “to Canadians by removing the federal sales tax from the home heating bills of Canadian households”.

2870 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 43