44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 22, 2022 10:00AM
- Mar/22/22 10:38:53 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am on the natural resources committee with my colleague and yes, there is some gouging at all levels of the pricing of the cost of fuels in Canada and perhaps not just within our fossil fuel area.
Coming from a farming background, I know exactly what has happened to the price of fertilizer in the last year. It has doubled for both nitrogen and phosphorus. They are coming from natural gas products in those areas, so there are exacerbations in the increases of these products due to things like the Suez Canal blockade. That started that whole process in fertilizer pricing of the changes of costs, and the delivery mechanisms have slowed because of COVID.
We have certainly got a problem with the taxes on taxes the government has today. All I am saying is there is something that the government can do immediately and it is not doing it.
153 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 10:39:58 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to take part in today's debate.
I have not had an opportunity to congratulate the member for Abbotsford on his new role in the House. I would like to do that now. Of course, this is a return to a role he held previously, and I am always excited to work with a fellow British Columbian on policy.
The motion under consideration before us today brings to mind the musings of a 20th century journalist who said that for every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, elegant and wrong. Make no mistake, our government cares about tackling global inflation and making life more affordable. In fact, I gave a speech in the House yesterday where I outlined many of the very real solutions our government has put forward to make life more affordable. I will raise some of these initiatives later on in my speech, but I would first like to turn to the issue of rising energy prices.
Certainly we can all agree that the problem of rising gasoline prices is a complex one that must be seriously considered. Canadians and people around the world are facing higher prices at the gas pump as a result of the unprecedented challenge of restarting the world's economy in the wake of a global pandemic and the significant global oil market disruptions arising as a result of Russia's illegal war in Ukraine.
The proposed solution is wrong because gas taxes represent a small portion of the total price that consumers pay at the pump, so cutting them would be ineffective in protecting Canadians from these global market forces. Daily changes in gas prices can be greater than the 5% proposed in today's motion. That means that any positive impact of the proposed fuel tax cut could be wiped out the day after it was implemented. Canadians could literally wake up paying the same price for gas as they did the day before.
The government would also be in the uneasy position of having spent tens, if not hundreds of millions, of dollars trying to unsuccessfully fight market forces over which it has very little control. What would happen then? Would the opposition have us further cut gas taxes? How long would the measures last?
More importantly, what programs would the Conservatives cut to make up for the shortfall in revenue? They voted against our tax cuts for the middle class. They voted against decreasing the age of retirement from 67 to 65. These are all programs that make life more affordable for Canadians, but also programs the Conservatives would rather us do without.
It is interesting, but it seems that, according to the Conservatives, the solution to almost every problem we face in Canada can be solved by further subsidizing the oil and gas sector. Our government has cut taxes for the middle class twice, reduced the cost of child care, improved retirement security and made post-secondary education more affordable. The Conservatives vote against these important measures and then move a motion to cut the funding source for these important programs, which actually do make life more affordable for Canadian families.
This is because taxes help pay for the government programs and services that benefit Canadians. They provide a safety net on which all Canadians can rely in times of crisis and allow us to make the sort of investments that could help our economy grow and create more opportunities for future generations. Funding these investments means ensuring that everyone pays their fair share of tax, and taxes on gas are an important component of the Canadian tax system in this regard.
Moreover, there are very real costs associated with fuel consumption with respect to carbon pollution and climate change, which all Canadians have to pay when fuel is consumed and released into the atmosphere. The member for Abbotsford knows all too well the very real costs of the floods and forest fires that have affected so many families in British Columbia and across Canada. The fact is that climate change presents a threat to our long-term health and economic prosperity. Putting a price on carbon pollution is the most effective policy to address it.
Fortunately our government, along with most Canadians and provincial governments, understand this. That is why we recently confirmed our plan to increase the carbon price through to 2030. At the same time, we will continue to return the direct proceeds from the federal carbon pollution pricing system to their province or territory of origin. In jurisdictions that do not have their own fuel charge consistent with the federal backstop criteria, such as Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, approximately 90% of direct proceeds from the fuel charge are returned to the residents of those provinces through climate action incentive payments. As a result, in most households, these climate payments actually represent more than the increased costs they face from the federal carbon pricing system.
What is more, the remaining fuel charge proceeds are used to support small businesses, farmers, indigenous groups and other organizations. Going forward, the federal carbon price will continue to be revenue-neutral for the Government of Canada.
This is one thing that has always confused me about the contemporary Conservative policy. In 2019, Conservatives promised to eliminate carbon pricing entirely, a strange promise as both the member for Abbotsford and I live in B.C., where a price on carbon has been in place for more than 10 years. That particular promise essentially meant no savings for British Columbians and no fighting climate change in other jurisdictions. This of course is a lose-lose proposition for the people of British Columbia. It would be much more effective to ensure that the B.C. carbon price is revenue-neutral, a position I have supported since its inception.
In 2021, Conservatives reversed their position and promised to eliminate carbon pricing by getting rid of our revenue-neutral system and creating a less efficient special bank account where they would collect money on Canadians' behalf and tell them how to spend it. Now in 2022, Conservatives are again calling to eliminate carbon pricing, basically abandoning any real or serious climate plan that will allow us to hit our IPCC targets.
This motion in itself would potentially save up to eight cents a litre, which is remarkably close to the current carbon price of approximately 8.8¢ per litre. With revenue-neutral carbon pricing in place, we are making sure Canadians and Canadian businesses have positive incentives to make consumer choices that are good for them and good for the environment, and that encourage innovation and create clean solutions that Canada will be able to export to the world as demand for clean technology continues to grow rapidly.
Our policy is benefiting the majority of Canadian families, helping to fight climate change and helping to create clean jobs. I am confident that any future generation who might study contemporary Conservative climate policy or the lack thereof would see it as short-sighted and not meeting the real needs and challenges that Canadians are facing today.
At the same time, I think we could all agree that it is important that our government continues to focus on measures that make life in Canada more affordable for the average family. That is why our government is cutting taxes for the middle class while raising them on the wealthiest 1%. We have delivered on that commitment in real terms.
We have increased support for families and low-income workers through programs such as the Canada child benefit and the Canada workers benefit, which have helped lift over one million Canadians out of poverty since 2015, including 435,000 children. In fact, our anti-poverty measures helped reduce Canada’s poverty rate to all-time historic lows. We have increased the guaranteed income supplement top-up benefit for low-income seniors and enhanced the GIS earnings exemption, and we are increasing old age security for Canadians aged 75 and older in July of this year.
As well, to protect Canadians from the impact of inflation, the government indexes the Canada child benefit to inflation, as well as the Canada pension plan, old age security, the guaranteed income supplement, the goods and services tax credit and other benefits that our most vulnerable Canadians rely on. This means that, as inflation rises, so too do these benefits. To further offset the impact of inflation and make life more affordable, we have increased the basic personal amount that Canadians could earn before paying any federal income tax. To ensure that this support is targeted at the middle class, the benefits of the increased exemption are phased out for high-income taxpayers.
When this measure is fully implemented next year, single individuals will pay $300 less in tax each year and families will pay $600 less. We are also working with provinces and territories to implement a Canada-wide, $10-a-day, community-based early learning and child care system that will make life more affordable for families, create new jobs, get parents back into the workforce and grow the middle class, while giving every child a real and fair chance at success. These are the right ways for the government to make life more affordable and offset the impact of inflation.
I have primarily discussed government fiscal policy, but I think it is worth discussing monetary policy as well. A strong monetary policy framework is also crucial to keeping prices stable and keeping inflationary pressures in check. Our government and the Bank of Canada believe that monetary policy could best serve Canadians by continuing to focus on price stability. That is why, last December, the government and the Bank of Canada announced the renewal of the 2% inflation target for another five-year period.
The renewed framework will keep the bank focused on delivering low, stable and predictable inflation in Canada. Since Canada's adoption of the inflation-targeting framework 30 years ago, inflation has averaged close to 2%, which has contributed to our country's strong labour market performance, to our economy's growth and to our prosperity. Maintaining a stable environment for the prices that Canadians pay is the paramount objective for Canada's monetary policy. That policy is independently administered by the Bank of Canada and has been tremendously successful since its implementation.
There are very real challenges with regard to global inflation and strong fiscal and monetary policies help Canadians work through these challenges. These are the right ways to make life more affordable for Canadians and protect them from the impacts of inflation.
The proposal put forward in today's motion is not. It is wrong because it would be ineffective and it would be costly. It is wrong because it would undermine important goals like protecting Canadians from the impact of climate change and ensuring we can afford to invest in our highest priorities. It is wrong because the federal government does not have the authority to cut the Quebec sales tax, and it is wrong because our government is already taking more effective and appropriate steps to make life affordable for Canadians and protect them from the impacts of inflation.
I am thankful for the opportunity to make this case.
1889 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 11:54:53 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the amendment the member wanted to put forward, but I want to really focus on what we are doing today.
In his comments, he mention that seniors do not drive and there are a variety of reasons this does not impact each and every Canadian. I fully disagree with him on that. We recognize that many things coming into stores are GST exempt, but we use fuel and gasoline when we are doing shipments. When a person is being driven to a medical appointment, maybe by a taxi, there is going to be an increase. There is that 5% sitting there in taxes.
There are so many ways we can look at this, and although it is not cut and dry because there is not a direct link, we know that overall it will have a bearing. A reduction of 5% will reduce the cost of things for people because gas is being used, or fuel.
Will the member be supporting the motion?
167 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 12:31:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Davenport.
I want to take this opportunity to share some thoughts with members on my basic understanding. I can honestly say that the issue of the price on gas has always been of interest to me, since I was a 12-year-old young man pumping gas at Turbo for 51¢ a gallon. Members can do the math to figure out the cost per litre; it would have been a whole lot cheaper.
Ever since then, and this goes back to the 1970s, it has been about supply and demand. I can recall being at the station and there would be lineups of cars because of the fear that the earth was running out of fossil fuels. At least, that was one of the conspiracies that were talked about back then, when I was but a 12-year-old young man. Today we are again talking about the price of fuel. We have seen dramatic increases in fuel prices.
It is fair to say that we have to put it in the context of time. With respect to what is happening in Europe and the horrors that are taking place in Ukraine today, and we have to just turn on the news to get a very good sense of some of the horrors I am talking about, this House has unanimously recognized that what is happening in Ukraine is wrong. We have recongnized how offensive the Russian government, in particular President Putin, has been. At the end of the day, there has been a cost. We are starting to see that cost first-hand at our pumps as the world demand for oil is somewhat in turmoil today.
We have seen the government, in particular the minister of industry, come forward to talk about the Competition Bureau. The Competition Bureau has been notified in the strongest way to monitor the price of fuel and to act wherever it can on the whole issue of collusion and how oil companies might be jacking up the prices, which would affect all of our constituents. We are very much aware of the issue.
The Conservative Party, through an opposition motion, has taken it to another level and another step. The Conservatives are saying, let us reduce the tax on the price of a litre of gasoline. I have a bit of a problem with that. I understand the value of general revenues overall to our national governments and provincial governments. They are what enable us to provide the many different social programs that we have been providing throughout the years. The Conservative Party are saying to do this on a temporary basis. The Conservatives have not given any explanation of what they mean by temporary.
However, I posed a question earlier. We have Progressive Conservative or Conservative governments in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario. I asked which one of those Conservative governments has actually reduced the price of a litre of gas by reducing their tax on gasoline. To the best of my knowledge, that has not taken place. It has not taken place because, at the end of the day, I suspect the concern is the overall pricing of gasoline and what we can do to ensure gouging is not taking place at our pumps. The different levels of government do have a role to play. As I pointed out, for us it is through the Competition Bureau, which is monitoring the situation.
Inflation is something we take very seriously. If we look at the Liberal Party of Canada's agenda on the issue of inflation, from the 2015 election all the way to today, we will see that from day one we have been very progressive in our thinking and in being there to support Canadians.
In yesterday's debate I made reference to the tax breaks for Canada's middle class and pointed out how the Conservative Party voted against those tax breaks. However, for the first number of years, the focus of our government was on Canada's middle class and how we could expand the middle class. The results of the policy measures we had in those first few years had a profoundly positive impact. Canada's economy was doing exceptionally well in comparison to other countries around the word, in particular in comparison with the United States and European Union countries.
Then we hit the pandemic, and we saw Canadians come together once again to take on something that was happening around the world. The impact it had on our economy was quite severe. If we look at what we were able to accomplish by working with Canadians and the different types of support programs we brought in to support Canadians, whether it was the CERB or programs for direct support for seniors, people with disabilities, students and just vulnerable people in general, we were there and we had the backs of Canadians through that difficult time. It paid off, just like our first four years of dealing with the middle class did when we generated over a million jobs in those four years up to the pandemic.
If we compare Canada to other countries around the world, whether the U.S. or G20 countries, we did exceptionally well in comparison. Well over 100% of the jobs have returned from prepandemic times. I like to believe it had a lot to do with the government programs that were rolled out. Somewhere in the neighbourhood of 80% to 85% of all new money spent on pandemic relief came from Ottawa to again support Canadians.
Inflation is something that has come up as a major issue over the last couple of years and the government continues to give more attention to it. With respect to making comparisons, we have to put that into perspective with what else is taking place in the world. The speaker before me said we should compare it to the United States. In Canada, our inflation rate is at 5.7% compared to the U.S., which is 7.5%. Then we were criticized as to why we were only comparing it to the U.S.
Let us look at the G20 countries. If we average out the inflation rate of the G20 countries in the world, it is over 6%, which is higher than Canada. For a government, that does not mean there is no room for improvement. There are things we have put in place and have taken action on to ensure we are contributing as much as possible in a positive way to our economy and the growth of our economy. We are trying to minimize some of the negative impacts of inflation. For the Conservative Party to give the impression that there is a huge black cloud over Canada because of inflation is somewhat misleading.
At the end of the day, the government policies we have put in place have done exceptionally well, especially if we compare ourselves to other countries in the world. That does not mean there is not more work to be done. There is a lot more work to be done, such as the presentation of the 2022-23 budget, which I know will be a true reflection of what Canadians believe is the right thing for this time and age.
1227 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 12:42:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my fellow Manitoba MP for his thoughtful speech. A quick Google search shows that Maryland and Georgia have cut a 36¢ excise tax on fuel until the end of May. Florida passed a one-month gas tax suspension on a temporary basis. Maine and Washington have introduced similar measures, as have other states.
If these states can all take up this great idea, why will the member's government not do the same?
78 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 1:16:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I wish I could say it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to this motion, but that would be misleading in this place. The circumstances that have led to the necessity for this opposition day motion completely efface the normally noble feelings I have to expect when standing in the House.
The price of fuel has been increasing: This we all know. We can sit here and debate the macroeconomic reasons for how we got here. We can point fingers at various governments, regulatory bodies, international associations, etc., but what would that do? What would pointing the finger at government agencies do for the business owners who I spoke to during question period in the last sitting week? The reality of the situation is that no amount of bickering in this place about past governments will lower the out-of-control fuel bills Canadians are being stuck with.
People of all ages and stages of life are grappling with these costs. Their budgets do not have room for the increase when paying the minimum payment on their exhausted credit cards is their primary concern. Bickering about OPEC or about allegations of corporate greed among oil and gas companies does nothing to help the young couple from Stirling I spoke to earlier today, the retiree from Bath last week, or the gentleman from Tamworth who emailed this morning begging for relief. Empty words and pit-bull rhetoric from wordy politicians gets old and will not help.
However, this motion would help. This is why it is critical that we pass this motion today and do so unanimously, so we can all go back to our constituents and say that we did this together. We set aside any professional grudges we held. We set aside our pride. We set aside our loyalty to our parties and we delivered a financial reprieve to those suffering from these ridiculous fuel prices.
It is no surprise at all that those in the House who are lucky enough to represent the more rural ridings in Canada feel particularly strongly about this issue. To be clear to my more urbanite colleagues in all parties, I do not mean to minimize the effect that these fuel prices have had on their constituents. I know they suffer too, but the simple reality is that the people in rural Canada, such as those in Hastings—Lennox and Addington, rely more on fuel than lobbyists in downtown Toronto or bureaucrats here in Ottawa. There is no city bus from Eldorado to Enterprise. There is no LRT from Bancroft to north Thurlow. Many people do not live within walking distance of where they work. The vast majority of voters, constituents and human beings do not: They need to drive cars, and believe me when I say driving around Hastings—Lennox and Addington requires a lot of gasoline. There is a lot of driving.
Farmers, who have often invested millions of dollars in their machinery, do not have the option to use some tax credit to convert their fleets to electric, nor do haulers, foresters or any small business owners reliant on any type of machinery.
Another point that often gets left out is that of home heating. I spoke to a senior late last week who is living on a fixed income. This particular gentleman lives in the rural community of Marmora. People there cannot switch over to a more cost-effective heating option not only because it is cost-prohibitive, but because in many instances, such as his, the infrastructure just does not exist.
These are good people. Many of these people have been raised to work hard and play harder. These people have paid their taxes, volunteered in their communities, coached sports teams and baked for school fun fairs and church bazaars. These are Canadians who rely on their vehicles to get to work and take their children to activities. These are Canadians and non-profit groups that depend on their vehicles to keep serving their communities. They needed a reprieve yesterday.
They do not deserve to suffer under paralyzingly high fuel prices. Something needs to be done, and today something can be done. Today, we can call on the government to pause the GST on fuel and give Canadians a break. This would immediately reduce prices at the pump by about 8¢ a litre. I recognize this does not solve the problem, but it helps. The reality is that 53% of Canadians cannot keep up with rising costs. Higher fuel prices raise the cost of everything. It is not just a ripple effect anymore; it is a tidal wave, and Canadians are feeling it across this country.
I urge the members of this place to consider this. The official opposition has before them a realistic, tangible and direct solution for Canadians suffering from high prices. To date, this legislature's reaction to those gas price increases has been completely inadequate. A vote against this motion is a vote for the status quo. It is a vote against the low-income senior who is forced to choose between heating and meals. It is a vote against the single parent of four kids struggling to make ends meet. It is against the farmer who grows our cities their food. It is a vote against the struggling student working three service jobs through town to get through school.
This is a good motion. It would help all of our constituents. An opposition day motion should not automatically elicit a paroxysm of partisan mania from other parties, yet it happens far too often. While I am not surprised, I am extremely disappointed that the NDP has now formally signalled to the Liberals that it will support whatever measures are needed to prop up this minority Parliament.
Regardless of one's political leanings, the option was not on the ballot. It is not democracy at its best. Today, I implore the members who vote against the motion to at least consider listening to their constituents crying out for help. If they have not already, they should ask their staff to read the emails sent to them and listen to the messages that are being left on phones. I guarantee they will have many instances to share with them.
Try to understand the sleepless nights that these increases in prices are bringing. If members vote against the motion, at least they could think about how else they could ease the financial burden of the short-sighted economic policies from governments the world over that have been foisted onto the backs of our seniors, our single parents, our indigenous communities, our farmers and our rural Canadians, and they could act.
This is what we were sent to this place to do: to act. If members must vote against the motion, be it because of pressure from their whip or leadership, then I pray they will listen to the words of the members here and their constituents at home, and use these to go back to their caucuses and create something more palatable for Parliament. None of our constituents, especially those in rural communities, can afford the indecisiveness and indifference that plagues politicians in Ottawa. The status quo is not acceptable. We owe them all better, regardless of political affiliation.
1223 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 1:29:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the issue of the day is how we can help Canadians. The cost of fuel has increased 32.3% in one year alone. That is why we are here today presenting an opposition motion to provide relief for Canadians. I will continue to be the voice of all Canadians looking for relief with regard to the spiralling cost of living.
62 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 1:50:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member opposite hails from the same province I do. I find it fascinating that we are talking about electric buses, energy from thin air and the like. When I speak to the rural residents of Cumberland—Colchester, they wonder how they are going to get to the doctor's office, the hospital or the grocery store because, surprise, surprise, they all do it by car. How do they heat their homes? Most of them use home heating fuel, which is also known as diesel. This proposal would change things for Canadians overnight and cost the government nothing in a timely and proportioned response. How is the member opposite going to help with that?
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 1:53:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, our government has committed to and in fact ran on the phase-out of fossil fuel subsidies and most recently has accelerated the phase-out, which does create capacity in past and upcoming budgets to support the very kinds of programs that the member raised so diligently today.
This will allow us to allocate more money to seniors and those living in need, more money for other methods of low- and zero-emission transit, as well as other means of heating homes and running industries.
87 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 3:14:28 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we have committed to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies two years earlier than our G20 country partners. We will do this, and I will be happy to work with her to make that happen as soon as possible.
39 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 4:52:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, of course, climate change matters. Our future matters, and what we are going to do, and how we are going to fuel our homes, matters.
Right now, the party across the way, the Liberal government, says to go buy an electric vehicle. If someone does not have $10 to put gas in their car, how are they supposed to afford to buy an electric vehicle? Where is the technology for the batteries? I think we have a big discussion to have, and I am willing to work with all MPs in this House on this, because I think we have to think long term, but right now, today, when people cannot buy food, this is an instant relief that is needed to move forward.
126 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 4:55:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, on this side of the House, we understand that budgets simply do not balance themselves. It does not matter whether it is a government budget or a household budget, it is worth mentioning that we understand that budgets do not balance themselves. It takes work and effort.
Right now Canadian families and individuals across this country are having a hard time making ends meet. I have heard many members in the chamber add their thoughts and arguments to the debate today. Some have been constructive and others not so much, but it is worth clarifying a couple of facts.
GST on fuel is a tax on a tax. The price of gasoline is determined by a competitive market and one of the key components in that price is the price of crude oil and the refinery costs. When crude oil prices go up, the cost of gasoline typically ends up following. Then there are the federal gasoline tax, the provincial sales tax, the provincial gasoline tax and the carbon tax. That price, with all of those taxes, is then taxed by GST on the whole. Effectively, when the cost of gasoline increases, the amount of GST collected continues to increase.
What we are witnessing right now across our country is among the highest inflation rates in a generation. Compared to last year alone, we have seen increases in inflation of 5.7%. That means that the cost to get household goods and services has increased, but wages have stayed stagnant. There are statistics and figures showing that groceries are costing the average family of four an additional $1,000 a year.
I do not know about anyone else, but I talk to a lot of constituents and families throughout my riding of Fort McMurray—Cold Lake and they let me know that they do not have an extra $1,000 to put toward groceries, they really do not. They are struggling, and they need relief. They need relief today. This is part of why this motion was put forward, to put a small, yet meaningful, pause on the GST collected on gasoline to provide families with a little hope and a bit of relief.
It is worth noting that currently 53% of Canadians have said they have a hard time making ends meet already due to the rising prices of everything. Every time gasoline goes up, the cost of everything increases because it has a sort of escalator tax on it. I live very far north in Alberta, the furthest north one can get at least in a car, and people there pay more than what people further south pay.
For instance, when I filled up my gas tank this weekend, it was $1.659. In Edmonton, a big city that is four and a half hours away, it was $1.559. That is a difference of 10¢ a litre and is worth noting. Every time someone travels somewhere and gasoline costs more, the fixed costs are more. If we talk about food, the prices increase. If we talk about just about anything, the business owner has a choice of either raising the price of goods or decreasing their profits. That is a real, hard fact.
This very issue was seen in my home province of Alberta. It announced that it was going to stop collecting a fuel tax effective April 1 when West Texas Intermediate exceeds $80 U.S. a barrel. It will result in a reduction of 13¢ a litre on clear fuel and 4¢ a litre on dyed fuel. While this does not solve the problem of inflation by any means, it is a small, meaningful difference that people will see at the gas pumps that will help them make ends meet today.
That is the real difference here. I have heard many of my colleagues mention longer-term projects, but what they are failing to understand is that many families are failing to make ends meet right now, today, each and every day. This is something that we really have to put into play.
In my riding, I jokingly say that everything starts at three hours. It is three hours from my community of Fort McMurray to get to the next closest community, which is Lac La Biche. It is four and a half hours by vehicle to get from Fort McMurray to Edmonton. Many people all throughout my riding constantly have to go to Edmonton for medical appointments and a variety of different specialized appointments, just because of the locality and the isolation of the region.
I think that this is a piece that perhaps not all members necessarily understand. We do not really have a choice in my riding to take a bus to get to most places. Unfortunately, that transit, similar to what some of the members have shared, in those rural ridings is not necessarily always an option. Families in my riding are being faced with the very real struggle of whether they fill up their gas tank so they can drive to work, drive their kids to school, get groceries and get to appointments, or heat their homes and keep their lights on.
Effectively, families should not be pushed into this decision where they are having to make those choices. I do not think that families really care whether global supply chains are the reason why the costs have gone up. I do not think they really care that it is due to a war in Ukraine. What they see is a harder time to make the two ends meet, and they are asking for help. I had countless conversations with constituents over the last couple of weeks, where they were just telling me that they really could use just a little bit of a hand-up. That is exactly what this motion puts forward. It offers a hand-up to constituents to give them that little bit of relief.
I was doing some calculations and I have a conservative estimate that an average vehicle that has about 65 litres in its tank will see a savings of about $5.20 per fill-up. That five dollars might not be a big deal to some, but when I was filling up with gas over the constituency weeks, I could see a constituent and they were only putting $10 into their tank. That is all they had. They could only put $10 into their tank. I was not sure where they were even planning to go in Fort McMurray with $10 in their tank. I think this is part of the concern here. They want to keep their fridges stocked, their lights on and their gas tanks full, and I think this is the very least we can do right now.
The government is actually profiting on increased gas prices in countless ways, so we are offering a simple solution to allow consumers to have just a little bit of relief, so that they too can have some of that back in their pockets so that they can make those choices as to whether they want, perhaps, a little bit of a treat and go out to the movies or something along those lines. It has been a long couple of years where we have not been able to do those things and now that they finally are able to travel and now that they finally are able to go visit, they cannot afford to because gas is so expensive.
This is something that the members opposite might laugh at, but it is four and a half hours to get to Edmonton from Fort McMurray. That is a long distance and there is not a train. There are only a few flights a day that are even an option and flights are exponentially more expensive.
What they are looking for is just a little tiny bit of relief. I would implore all members of the House to keep in mind that family that is struggling and needs that extra five dollars or $10 in their pocket, and work with us. Let us work to make life a little bit more affordable for Canadians because, quite frankly, they really could use it.
1375 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 5:05:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I guess we can really clearly hear the Liberal-NDP coalition well at play in that question.
What is important to note is that the cost of fuel has increased by 32.3% in one year alone. This is a massive increase in the cost of fuel, and it is incumbent on the government to take some actions to make sure it provides relief to families who are struggling to make ends meet today and not in some long-term five years from now that families would get assistance.
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 5:10:28 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my speech will be the last one on today's motion. I have a question. Why does the official opposition think that the gas tax is the only way to solve the runaway inflation that is currently happening across the spectrum?
Anyone who must use a gas-powered vehicle is certainly feeling a little pinch when it comes time to pay. I heard people being interviewed on the radio recently who said that they were going to reconsider their daily use and their trips, and perhaps carpool or opt for a monthly public transit pass. Despite the inconvenience of changing one's habits, I am inclined to say that these are, in the end, good habits to develop. However, some people do not have these options.
Our comments on inflation felt at the pump should normally be followed by a dialogue. We should be seeing acts to justify reaching a consensus on such a motion to reduce taxes. However, there has been nothing of the sort.
The inflationary phenomenon does not affect only people who use gas. It is hurting other sectors of the economy, too. My colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert talked about this in reference to housing and groceries, to name but two essential and unavoidable expenses.
What they are proposing is relief at the pumps. However, in 12 months, the price per barrel of oil went from $64 to $128. Who pocketed the increase for crude oil? The oil companies did. Who pocketed the refining fees, which have quadrupled? The oil companies did. The shareholders, which include several Russians by the way, are thrilled and are busy filling up tax havens. Who profits from inflation? Again, the oil companies do.
Who is against having the oil companies do their part to ease the burden on the public? That would be the Conservatives. They could have moved a motion to that effect and we would have been pleased to support it. However, that is not the case. They are proposing the opposite.
If the goal is to protect consumers from the oil companies that are fleecing them or—to put it another way—from inflationary increases in the price of gas, then they should draft a motion that would have the oil companies contribute their share, because they are at the root of the problems we are condemning.
Are we to believe that the average person filling up their tank realizes not only how much profit the oil companies are raking in, but also the obscene amount of money the government gives to the industry? We are talking about hundreds of billions of dollars, year after year, no matter which party is in power. I have a hard time believing that the average person would support this.
Unfortunately, the official opposition would rather make taxpayers, who are already struggling financially, pay so that consumers can get some relief at the pumps. The opposition would rather that everyone other than oil companies pay. When will the Conservatives stop moving motion after motion that benefits this sector while failing to propose fair measures for all sectors in our society?
We are locked into government policies that are all too often designed to make the rich richer. Instead we should be implementing meaningful policies that would focus on real opportunities, the opportunities we need to establish a solid, fair and equitable foundation for society as a whole and that would have a real, meaningful impact for people.
The problem of Inflation, which is going up and shows no sign of slowing down in the near future, will not be solved with measures like the ones the Conservatives are proposing. It will certainly not be solved by increasing oil production, as the Conservatives were calling for two or three weeks ago in response to the conflict in Ukraine.
What inflation shows us is that the poorest, those on fixed incomes, are the most affected. I am thinking of seniors primarily. There are structural economic weaknesses that must be corrected and that require short-term remedies, but, more importantly, they also require long-term measures.
I will try to explain what must be done in the short term. We must stop cutting right now—and not in one or even two months—the guaranteed income supplement cheques of the poorest seniors who received the Canada emergency response benefit or the Canada recovery benefit last year. At the same time, and not six months from now, we must increase old age security to ensure that seniors maintain their purchasing power in light of the increased cost of living. That is something concrete and responsible that can be done immediately. These are the firm positions the Bloc Québécois has called for for some time now, but such measures have so far failed to materialize.
It takes political will to implement long-term measures. There must be follow-through on the fine speeches and the positions we try to present. I will try anyway, as one never knows.
I am thinking of the small percentage point of state revenue that the government should permanently allocate to the construction of social housing and that it should send to Quebec, the only province that provides ongoing funding for the construction of social housing in Canada. These monies would make it possible for Quebec to more quickly implement its own programs. My colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert spoke eloquently about this a few minutes ago.
When the government does not use the tools it has to tackle the labour shortage, which is what we are seeing now, obviously we have reason to worry about the future. Our aging population is real, and we need workers.
I cannot be the only MP who is getting calls about the never-ending application processing times at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada for seasonal or skilled foreign workers, and from businesses that are at the end of their rope. Once again, the Bloc has a real solution that will produce real results. We want to lighten the government's load by taking the temporary foreign worker program off its hands altogether.
This would be a great way for the government to lighten its load. This idea makes a lot of sense for those who like common sense. Quebec is already responsible for its labour policies. We have Emploi-Québec, industry committees and expertise on the ground already. This move would obviate the need for a study for every application, and it would expedite the process overall.
Solutions and government policies exist to address economic disruptions, some of which were exacerbated by the pandemic. Others have talked about this.
Going back to the motion we are opposing, the economic argument is used extensively to convince people of the need to continue with the fossil fuel approach. In reality, however, we do not decide the price of oil, as it is set on the London and New York stock exchanges. There is little we can do to limit the fluctuations and price increases. However, it is possible to make the economy more resilient to these fluctuations by reducing our reliance on oil and by accelerating the transition to renewable energies. My colleagues saw me coming, I am sure.
The truth needs to be told loud and clear when it comes to the real price of energy and gasoline. The price is much higher than what we pay at the pump. The real price includes social costs, including to our health care systems. Thousands of people die each year from illnesses directly related to air pollution, especially children with lung and respiratory conditions. The real price also includes all the public funds given in subsidies and tax breaks to the oil and gas sector to support an industry that will eventually disappear whether we like it or not. Finally, that price includes the environmental costs occurring upstream during a hyper-polluting extraction that causes environmental damage and downstream when these products are consumed or burned.
Everything this industry produces contributes to the climate crisis and our collective destiny. Today is World Water Day, as declared by the UN. I will remind everyone and the opposition of the devastation that this industry is inflicting on regional waterways with the foulest impunity.
Now we are being asked to continue enriching this sector even more. Is there no limit to the indecency? As they say, to ask the question is to answer it.
1418 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
