House of Commons Hansard #119 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was gas.

Topics

Business Of The HouseOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Reform

Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, on the Thursday question, I would like to ask the government House leader exactly what business he plans for the next week or so. I noticed today during question period there was a lot of interest in fuel tax relief. That is the motion of the Canadian Alliance today.

Does House leader plan to bring a motion tomorrow to bring immediate tax relief to all Canadians through reductions in gas and fuel taxes? If he would like to do so, the Canadian Alliance will certainly waive the 48 hour notice period.

Business Of The HouseOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

The Speaker

My colleagues, it is like we are having a second question period sometimes on this Thursday question. Perhaps we could agree that with the Thursday question we could simply put the question and get on with it, rather than making any kind of suggestions as to what might be.

Business Of The HouseOral Question Period

September 21st, 2000 / 3:05 p.m.

Glengarry—Prescott—Russell Ontario

Liberal

Don Boudria LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see the new-found enthusiasm for the government amendment proposed to the hon. member's motion for today.

Tomorrow we will consider the second reading of Bill C-41, the veterans' legislation. On Monday we will commence the report stage of Bill C-3, the youth justice bill. On Tuesday we will consider report stage of Bill C-14 followed by third reading.

On each day I would propose as well, time permitting, the second reading of Bill C-17, amendments to the criminal code. We would then return for the completion of Bill C-3, hopefully at third reading then next Thursday.

There is ongoing negotiation on Bill C-38 about which I cannot report this minute but perhaps later on this day or at another time.

Business Of The HouseOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

NDP

Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am not obliged to urge the government to take a particular position but rather to inquire about the status of legislation the government has already committed to and that is the corporate criminal responsibility legislation, otherwise known as the Westray bill.

Does the government House leader have any idea when that might be forthcoming?

Business Of The HouseOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Mr. Speaker, I will inquire about that issue. I understand that there was a motion that was adopted at some point, but I will inquire about the issue of the bill per se and will report to the hon. member at the House leaders' meeting on Tuesday.

The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:05 p.m.

Reform

Gary Lunn Reform Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan.

I am pleased to rise today on the opposition supply day motion. I am going to read the motion so that everybody is absolutely clear about what we are debating today. This motion was brought forward by the member for Prince George—Peace River of the Canadian Alliance. It states:

That given the record increases in the price of gasoline and home and diesel fuel, severely hurting Canadian consumers, truck drivers and businesses, and given the recent promise by the Minister of Finance to reduce taxes, this House call upon the government to give relief on fuel taxes, including repealing the increase in gasoline excise tax introduced as a temporary deficit elimination measure in 1995 and implementing the 1998 recommendation of the Liberal Caucus committee on gasoline pricing in Canada to remove the double taxation of the GST.

I felt it important that we read this into the record again as we start the afternoon session of this debate to ensure that everybody knows what we are talking about.

I want to focus right now on the comments that are coming from the Liberal government members. I am quite amazed with the excuses they are coming up with. There are two that stand out and I have heard them over and over again as I have followed this debate.

The reason they are saying they are opposed to this is that they are waiting for the provinces. That is the indication we are getting right now and hopefully we can change their minds. The other excuse is they cannot do anything with the taxes on gasoline because the fuel companies would then gobble up that difference by increasing the price and no savings would be passed to the consumer.

I have to question who is running this country. Is it the provinces and the oil companies or is it the government? That is a very feeble excuse. Are they leaders or are they followers? I am absolutely amazed that they say we have to take our cues from the provinces. When it comes to anything else, like the cut in transfers to the provinces of billions of dollars for health care, there is no consultation with the provinces. The Liberals run this country sometimes with an iron fist with zero consultation.

When it comes to putting taxes up, they claim to want to have a consultation process. What they really do is show up and tell us what they are about to do. Now when there is an absolute cry, an absolute need to do something on these fuel taxes, the government wants to wash its hands of it and do absolutely nothing.

It is ironic that in this year alone the government is going to collect some $13 billion in fuel taxes. When we look at its record on what it has put into the highway infrastructure in this country, last year I believe it was mere 4.1%. It was in the millions when they are collecting billions and it goes right into government revenues.

I had a call from a person last night. He has been following this discussion in the media. He made a very interesting point. It is widely known across the country that when we go to the pumps to purchase gasoline, anywhere from 36% to 45% of that price is taxes. In fact, members of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation have been advocating two prices at the pumps, the actual price of the gasoline and the actual tax, so people get to see what they are paying in taxes. On average about 41% of the price of gasoline is taxes.

The gentleman I spoke to made a very interesting comment. He said that on every dollar he earned, he paid at least 40 cents in income tax and probably a lot more. Let us be conservative and 40 cents in tax. That would leave him 60 cents. Before he even gets to the pumps he only has 60 cents of that dollar he earned. When he gets to the pumps of that 60 cents about 25 cents of that is taxes. From that dollar he ends up paying 65 cents in taxes. For every dollar earned by that working Canadian he is paying 65 cents in taxes. At least 40 cents in income taxes are taken off before he even gets to take what is left to the pumps, which would be 60 cents, and of that another 25 cents goes in taxes. Clearly there is a problem with taxes.

Ironically the Liberal caucus had a committee that looked into this issue in 1998. It made a number of recommendations to the government. Was it listened to? No. Its recommendations fell upon deaf ears, as have so many reports by members on all sides including those on the backbenches of the government across from me. They put work into these reports and they are absolutely ignored. They are thrown on shelves to collect dust.

The government's own backbenchers agreed with the Canadian Alliance that it was absolutely wrong and unacceptable for the government to charge a tax on a tax. That is what the government is doing. The federal government charges GST on its own excise tax. Liberal backbenchers said that was wrong, with which we agree 100%. In our supply day motion we give them credit for coming forward to their government.

We included in the supply day motion the recommendation by the Liberal caucus committee on gasoline pricing to remove the GST on the excise tax. We give that committee credit for coming forward in 1998. Yet will the government listen to the committee now? It did not listen in 1998. From the debate I have heard so far today there does not appear to be any interest in listening now.

I find it absolutely unbelievable when we look at the taxes the government is collecting. We watched the Minister of Finance announce a $12 billion surplus. Can we wrap our minds around $12 billion? Is it easy to say what $12 billion mean? That is $400 for every man, woman and child in the country. For a family of four that is $1,600 the government has collected in excess taxes. Even in the first quarter of this year alone the surplus is $11.4 billion. It is out of control.

What we have put forward with respect to gasoline taxes is a start. Let us not make it too onerous. Let us eliminate the tax on the tax. Let us get rid of that GST on the excise tax because we all know it is wrong. It is not acceptable to start taxing tax. That is wrong.

Let us eliminate the l.5 cent increase which the government put on the excise tax specifically to reduce the deficit. We all know the deficit is gone. When it put that tax increase on the excise tax the government said it was specifically for that. It is still there. There is no interest in removing these tax increases.

I want to summarize. In the interest of the Canadian people we have to look at what is best for the country. We are asking the government to follow through. In the wording of the motion it only has to do two things. There are many other things we could look at down the road, but the first one would be not to tax a tax. It should eliminate the GST on the excise tax and eliminate the 1.5 cent increase on fuel.

Let us look at the other taxes as well. The government can do that by responding to the motion, voting in favour of it and bringing forward legislation. I know it talked about a motion. It could include that discussion in the legislation it brings forward and we could discuss it.

Government members should support this motion to show Canadians that they are actually concerned. Then they would support not only the Canadian Alliance but their own backbenchers.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Guy St-Julien Liberal Abitibi, QC

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member's comment about a customer who bought gasoline at a gas station, and I have a question for the hon. member.

In British Columbia, oil companies do not just indicate the price of gas before taxes. Taxes are always included in the price, as they are almost everywhere in Canada. But it would be important to see the net price of a litre of gas, before taxes.

The hon. member mentioned taxes in Vancouver. Could he tell us what these taxes are? Are there two, three or four taxes? What are the taxes you were referring to and how many cents do they amount to on a litre of gas?

Today, in the Abitibi region, a litre of regular gas retails for 81.9 cents, with 30.6 cents being taxes and 51 cents going to oil companies.

I would like to know the member's response to my question about the taxes charged on a litre of gas in British Columbia.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Reform

Gary Lunn Reform Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Madam Speaker, back on Vancouver Island the price of gasoline is in the high 70s and approaching 80 cents per litre. Depending on where one goes it fluctuates a few cents, but it is in the 78 to 79 cents per litre range. Around 35 cents of that amount is taxes: provincial taxes, the GST, the GST on the excise tax, and the federal government excise tax.

The hon. member said that he would like consumers to see that the price at the pumps is 45 cents and 35 cents is in taxes. That would be a good thing.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Etobicoke North Ontario

Liberal

Roy Cullen LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance

Madam Speaker, from time to time the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands can be a reasonable person, but most reasonable people would agree that if the federal government were to make any moves on excise taxes the provinces would be expected to do something as well.

If we look at British Columbia, the gasoline tax is 11 cents a litre. That compares with our 10 cent excise tax. The diesel is 11.5 cents and our diesel is 4 cents a litre. In addition there is another 1.5 cents a litre that is applicable for transit in the Victoria area.

If the federal government moved on excise taxes, realizing that the provincial taxes should come down as well, would the hon. member support a cut in the ferry services that serve the Gulf Islands, his constituents, and the transit systems within Victoria that his constituents use as well?

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Reform

Gary Lunn Reform Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Madam Speaker, again I find it ironic that the government has suggested to cut services. It is an area of provincial jurisdiction. I would not support decreasing services when it is sitting on a $12 billion surplus.

It is absolutely shameful that the member would actually suggest cutting bus service in Victoria and the ferry service to Gulf Islands. That is absolutely ridiculous. I cannot believe that he would suggest it.

With respect to the provincial taxes, I think they should come down. Am I proud of the NDP Government of British Columbia? Absolutely not. We have some of the highest provincial taxes placed on fuels in the country. They need to come down. I would like to see a new provincial government, but waiting for another provincial government is absolutely wrong.

The hon. member should show some leadership and not be a follower. If he wants to follow the NDP in British Columbia I am afraid it would probably not be a very good route and he would be very sorry that he did.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Reform

Jim Gouk Reform West Kootenay—Okanagan, BC

Madam Speaker, I would like to address two issues today. One of them is a four year old commitment by the Liberal government across the way. The other is the question raised in rhetoric by many Liberals also across the way of oil companies versus the government. If time permits, I would also like to address the question of provincial cuts versus federal cuts.

I will read into the record a portion of a transcript of committee evidence from the Standing Committee on Transport hearing on December 4, 1996. Appearing before the committee was the finance minister of the day who coincidentally is still finance minister. The transcript starts with my portion where I stated:

With regard to highways, one concern I always have at any committee is that if you hold hearings and almost everybody says the same thing, then, at least as a committee, we have an obligation to report that and to focus some of our recommendations based on that. The dedication of fuel tax is just one of those things.

In addressing the Minister of Finance, I said:

You yourself said today that the federal government spends about $300 million a year on highway infrastructure, but takes from my province of British Columbia alone you take almost three times that in federal fuel taxes. The provincial governments have a role to play in that, but the role we have to look at is ours. Now, I believe what you have said is correct. We can't just suddenly say sorry, we're going to dump that, about $5 billion altogether, into a dedicated fund. But we have to start. I think it is the right way to go. If the economy were better, then I would say yes, we have to transition fast. You're correct, the economy is very fragile, so we have to transition slow, but I still think it's the right way to go and we should try to start something along that line.

Would you agree we should at least examine the possibilities of starting something on that concept, even if out of the 10¢ it's 1¢ or 2¢?

The finance minister replied:

I must say I have probably a lot more difficulty with the concept of dedicated taxes having been the Minister of Finance for three years than I did when I was in opposition, because there is no doubt a certain warping of the mind occurs when you get this job.

I responded by saying:

I always wondered what happened.

The minister continued:

—I think your question is a very valid one, and the way you put it is very good. The fact is it is really not something we could contemplate doing now, simply because I think the most important thing, and I know you agree, is to solve our fundamental financial problem and we really should not limit our flexibility at this time.

Now, you're suggesting that what we might do, given that problem, is to start very small and build on it, if I understand what you have just said...I guess my answer to you...would be that you put the question well. There will come a time when we will have more flexibility and your suggestion is one we could perhaps consider. But I must say we would have to be generating, from my point of view, reasonably substantial surpluses before I would want to entertain the concept. Let me be very clear to you, because I think you've put the question in the proper tone, and that's the way in which I would want to respond.

I will move ahead a little to where the finance minister said:

The reason my original answer to your question was that we might be in a position—we're not in a position to examine it now, but we might be in a position—to examine it at a time when we're generating substantial surpluses is simply that you're not wrong when you say, look, if you spend a dollar now you might well save yourself $5 down the road. It's not that you're wrong in that at all. It's just that this applies not only to highways; it applies to a vast range of projects governments should really be involved in. I would say to you that if you're going to adopt that concept, we're going to get into a long line of priorities, and we do not have the money at the present time to go that way.

What I would really say to you, however—and I think this is going to be very important—is that there is going to be a second stage of the financial debate in this country when we go beyond the deficit to start talking about the debt-to-GDP ratio, the debt as a percentage of our gross domestic product. At that point the argument you're bringing forth is going to become very important.

He ended by saying:

I'm sorry to take so long, Chairman, but I think (the hon. member's) questions are very good. I guess it's a function of timing.

That was 1996. We now have a huge surplus. I think that function of timing has come. It is time for the government to start considering removing some of that tax and dedicating a portion of it to fix the highway infrastructure so that Canadians will know that they are getting value for the money that is being taken from them.

I would also like to read from a recent report by Statistics Canada that suggests the sole reason for gas price increases in real dollars is a change in tax levels. The Statistics Canada report adjusted 1957 gas prices to 1995 dollars which worked out to 56.6 cents per litre, broken down as 39.9 cents for the gas itself and 16.7 cents for taxes. That was in 1957. In 1995 the actual non-adjusted cost of gas was 56.1 cents which broke down as 29.8 cents for the gas and 26.3 cents for taxes. During the period of the report, the gasoline price alone dropped by 25% when the cost of taxes alone jumped by 57%. In 1957 the pump price of gasoline included 29% in various taxes. By 1995 the pump price of gasoline included 47% in taxes.

It is easy to blame the oil companies for the current price increases. Big corporations in general and the oil companies in particular are not very popular these days. The culprit in our current price jump is a combination of international crude oil prices and government taxes. Of those two, the one we can attempt to do something about is taxes. We should not let the government off the hook by laying the blame in the wrong place.

One hon. member across the way when questioning my colleague who spoke just before me brought up the question of whether the federal government should be dropping the price of its excise tax unless the provinces agreed to do the same.

Might I point out that my province of British Columbia has some pretty trying conditions to maintain our highways through the mountains and all the valleys, across rivers and the many bridges that we have. My province spends a substantial amount of that highway tax on highways. The federal government spends $300 million nationally but it takes $1 billion from my province alone.

To put out a suggestion that the federal government will only cut its excise tax if our province also matches it is completely out of line. Our province is already using that money for its original intended purpose. The federal government is spending less than 5% of its take on that same purpose.

In terms of environment versus conservation, there are those who suggest that if we drop the price of gas, then the use of gas is going to go up. In fact the Liberal government in response to the Kyoto convention has floated out the notion of a 38 cent per litre increase in the excise tax over a nine year period in order to force people to conserve gasoline.

That is the thinking of someone from a high density urban centre where there is all kinds of public transportation and different means for people to get around. It is incredibly punitive on people in rural areas from British Columbia to Newfoundland and everywhere in between. It also shows very narrow thinking. It totally ignores the problems of things that have been brought up extensively today such as heating oil.

The government collects what was termed when it began a highway tax. Then it put it on everything. Right now the government is taxing low income people using heating fuel. More often than not it is low income people who use that particular type of source, not high income people.

If the government would start with getting rid of the special excise tax that it put on to deal with the deficit we no longer have and stop this insane nonsense of taxing its own tax, maybe Canadian taxpayers would see a little relief at the pumps. The hon. member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge said in the past that there is price fixing between the gas companies yet the government wants to put out a requirement that those prices be fixed before it acts.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

NDP

Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC

Madam Speaker, I listened to my hon. friend and as always, I found his comments to be interesting. I actually do not have a question for him. It is more of statement.

Earlier today I inadvertently made the comment that in spite of the hundreds of questions the Canadian Alliance and previously the Reform Party had asked over the last year, I was not aware that there was a single question asked in question period about gas prices. I have to say I was incorrect. The research I have gone through would indicate that there were two questions asked over the last year out of almost 1,000. Just to make it perfectly clear, there were two questions on gas prices out of 1,000.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Reform

Jim Gouk Reform West Kootenay—Okanagan, BC

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the response from the hon. member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys. I am always amused to hear his comments in the House.

What I find interesting is the facade he is putting out that there is more relevance in the actions of any party and any member in question period than there is in committee work. Most people who have studied anything about politics know there is far more done in committee. That is where most of the work of this place is done. I have just finished reading a long portion of one of many actions that we have taken in committee, yet he queries why it was not raised in the circus called question period.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

Mac Harb Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON

Madam Speaker, I cannot believe what I have been hearing from my colleagues. One member after another has been saying that the government is collecting taxes from gasoline so it should spend that money on roads.

Canada has a general revenue fund. The government collects revenues through taxation of different things in society and eventually it makes an assessment in terms of need. The money is then spent accordingly. Is the member not aware of this?

Is the member suggesting that the Government of Canada should introduce user fees and abolish all of the social programs? Can he suggest how we would be able to support the health care program or the education program or all of the other issues in our society? Where would we get the money from? Can the member tell us?

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Reform

Jim Gouk Reform West Kootenay—Okanagan, BC

Madam Speaker, I really fear for the hon. member who just spoke when he gets back to his caucus meeting and points out to the finance minister that he did not understand that there was a surplus in Canada.

Where is the government going to get the money? It just finished acknowledging that for last year there is a $12 billion surplus. It actually thought it would be $3 billion. The government has ripped people off so much that it does not have $3 billion, it has $12 billion. What is more, the government has collected more than half of that amount already just a short way into this fiscal year. Where is the government going to get the money? The government will get the money out of the pockets of the taxpayer. It will get it out of the bank accounts of low income people who use heating fuel in Canada.

In my province we pay a marginal rate of taxes of 54.4 cents. That means when we get to the gas pumps we have 45 cents left out of $1 and we get almost 50% of what we pay for gas with that 45 cent dollar taxed by the government. We are going to get to the point where we will have to get money from some other source just to pay our tax bill. If the government keeps going the way it is, we are going to find situations where there will be more than 100% tax on some objects.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

NDP

Lorne Nystrom NDP Qu'Appelle, SK

Madam Speaker, I notice there was no reference to the profits made by oil companies in the motion tabled by the Alliance party. I also notice that the Alliance is having a fundraiser in Toronto where it is charging $25,000 a table. I assume some of the oil companies will buy tables at that particular fundraiser.

The member was talking about grassroots Canadians and ordinary people. I want to know how many ordinary people will buy these tables at $25,000 a hit. That party does not represent ordinary people. It represents the rich and wealthy and the privileged in Canada.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Reform

Jim Gouk Reform West Kootenay—Okanagan, BC

Madam Speaker, I know that party cannot relate to people with incomes at all, but I will have the hon. member know that I have 24 no cost public meetings in my riding every year. I would like to know how many public meetings he holds in his.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

Dennis Mills Liberal Broadview—Greenwood, ON

Madam Speaker, today's debate represents somewhat of a defining moment in this parliament because something unique has happened here.

I would like to go back to two months ago when the newly elected leader of the Canadian Alliance was at a press conference across the street. One journalist asked him what his number one priority would be when parliament returned. The leader of the Canadian Alliance said that the number one issue for him would be parliamentary reform.

The very first motion that the Canadian Alliance put on the floor of the House after the summer recess deals with a very important issue, the reduction of fuel prices. As members of parliament, all of us are seized with this issue and we are looking at it in its complexity.

Something unique happened on our side of the House. The backbench member of parliament for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge and many of his colleagues spent the last two years of their parliamentary lives going across the country listening to Canadians, to mom and pop gas station operators and the operators of oil companies. They studied the issue, what is the problem and how could we fix it. A report was produced. That report, as most members in the House would admit, is one of the finest pieces of work ever put out by a backbench team.

What happened in the House today is something I have never seen in 12 years. It was not a minister of the Government of Canada who led off with the government position today; it was the member of parliament for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge who said “This is our position”. Why I think this is somewhat of a defining moment is that the member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, who has strong views on the issue, and I think few would challenge his understanding of its complexity, put forward a constructive amendment to the Canadian Alliance motion.

This is what the member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge tried to get accepted by the Canadian Alliance: “That given the record increases in the price of gasoline, home and diesel fuel severely hurting Canadian consumers, especially those with lower incomes, this House calls upon the government to assist Canadians in coping with the rising financial burden and this House strongly urges provincial and territorial governments to consider providing similar assistance”.

The Canadian Alliance rejected to allow that motion to come to the floor. It rejected to allow members of parliament from all parties to consider that. This is significant to me because I am as passionately committed as anyone in the House to making the roles of members of parliament more meaningful and I was hopeful when the new leader of the Canadian Alliance said that his number one priority was going to be parliamentary reform. Today we had an example where parliamentary reform could have been dealt with in a constructive way for all Canadians, especially lower income Canadians and the Canadian Alliance walked away from it.

Madam Speaker, I am splitting my time with my dear friend and colleague from Ottawa Centre so please warn me when I have a minute left.

I appeal to the members of the Canadian Alliance that when their leader states that his number one priority is parliamentary reform and a government backbench team, led by the member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, puts forward a constructive amendment on behalf of all Canadians, to take that as an opportunity to constructively work together on a complex issue that every single member of parliament believes must be dealt with.

The single most important point that my colleague from Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge made today was that we should design a plan where the altered formula of incomes or revenue streams do not go into the treasuries of the oil companies but into the pockets of consumers, especially low income consumers.

That amendment was repeatedly put on the floor today. In fact, today during question period the Minister of Finance challenged the Canadian Alliance to work with the government and accept the member's amendment. He did not say that we would do it tomorrow or next week. The Minister of Finance said that we would vote today and that we would make it happen today.

Canadians listening to the debate today will judge fairly that over the last two years it was not a minister or a big department of government but a member of parliament with his colleagues who developed knowledge, listened and put a report forward. The government gave members of the Canadian Alliance an opportunity today to come on board and work together on behalf of all Canadians with lower incomes and they walked away from it.

The Canadian Alliance missed a great opportunity to follow through on their so-called commitment to parliamentary reform.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Reform

Monte Solberg Reform Medicine Hat, AB

Madam Speaker, first, I want to point out that the Speaker ruled that the amendment put forward by the member was inadmissible.

Second, the House leader of the Canadian Alliance through the Speaker told the member that we would be prepared to waive the period that was necessary before debating this sort of thing. We also said that we would be happy if the member from Ajax would talk to his own House leader and put it on the order paper for tomorrow. We would be happy to do that. Let us do that. That is the offer we are making to the member across the way.

Surely the member who just spoke has to acknowledge that is exactly what happened and is happening. In fact, his whole speech ignored that fact and he has misled Canadians about what the Canadian Alliance was and is prepared to do.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Dennis Mills Liberal Broadview—Greenwood, ON

Madam Speaker, I want you to ignore the fact that the member for Medicine Hat just said that I misled Canadians. I was in the House today sitting next to my colleague, the member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, and I can tell you, Madam Speaker, that the motion was put on the floor twice.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

An hon. member

Three times.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Dennis Mills Liberal Broadview—Greenwood, ON

Well I saw it twice with my own eyes and twice it was rejected.

Let us forget about the incident this morning. What is more important is that the Minister of Finance for Canada during question period today asked the leader of the Canadian Alliance to come on board and accept this amendment and he did not act.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Bloc

Jocelyne Girard-Bujold Bloc Jonquière, QC

Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to the member for Toronto—Danforth.

Today, we can see once again that Liberal members are living in the past. They talk about what they should have done or about what they did. But what are they doing right now about helping Canadians cope with the gasoline prices they are now facing and will continue to face?

Last year, in my region of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, the Canadian government collected close to $52 million from taxpayers, through its excise tax and GST.

What did the government do with that money? I was told by the office of the Minister of Finance that the money was distributed to the various departments. Today, through the Canadian Alliance motion before us, we are asking this government to act and actually do something for those people who are faced with a serious problem that will get even worse.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Dennis Mills Liberal Broadview—Greenwood, ON

Madam Speaker, I will say this humbly, but the government of Quebec does not support the oil companies. In fact, my understanding is that most of the members of the Bloc Quebecois support the report. I just do not understand why the hon. member is at odds with her own community.