Debates of March 22nd, 2022

Opposition Motion—Tax Reduction on Gasoline and Diesel

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, I always appreciate having an opportunity to discuss issues with the member from the Bloc on the environment committee. What we are talking about today is significant.

We talk about provincial issues and how provinces can help their communities. One of the aspects that I know Quebec talks about is this one, the question of how it can help to reduce greenhouse gas, and not just in Quebec, where it has done a good job. It has a source of energy that is beneficial to the country.

However, there is another aspect, which is that Alberta and western Canada also have an energy source that is not only beneficial to the country but to the world. I guess there is a bit of a difference, but I respect their energy sources and I ask that they respect ours.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, the residents of my community in Edmonton Griesbach are also suffering from this affordability crisis. It is hurting them not just in everyday rent, gas and groceries; they are also scared for their kids. What I want to hear the member talk about is how this country's economy is truly going to help these folks in a real way.

This proposal in many ways is temporary, but we know that this crisis may be long-lasting. These companies are profiting. Suncor, for example, profited by $4.1 billion, paying out $3.9 billion to its shareholders. CN Rail had $7.7 billion in profit. Would the member agree that we need to tax profiteers who have made unjust amounts of money and reinvest the money in the people who need it most as a real plan for affordability?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have spent a lot of time in Edmonton and took public transit there when it was necessary. A lot of times it was to go to watch my Eskimos play football, but that is a different story.

To be serious about the question, it is important that we understand some of the reasons that the prices are so high right now. We have a country that is rich in resources and the Canadian dollar is at 79¢ right now. These are the kinds of reasons that the prices at the pump are so severe. We have to look at the overall economic impact of what is taking place.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to say that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Kingston and the Islands.

Today, we are here to discuss the opposition motion moved by my hon. colleague from Abbotsford, which addresses the price of oil and gas.

The wording of the motion is non‑binding on the government, but I am glad we are having this conversation about affordability for Canadians and our constituents. The discussion is important at this time.

First, the current price of gas and the problems it is causing across the country are linked to the situation and the war in Ukraine. The price of gas and oil is based on an international market. It is not unique to Canada; it is linked in different ways to producers around the world.

When I have conversations with my constituents in Kings—Hants, I am reminded of that.

Part of the challenge that we are all going to have to face is the fact that although we are not directly involved militarily on the ground in Ukraine, the western world is responding by sanctioning the products that are coming from the Russian Federation as part of our plan to help deter future Russia aggression and obviously to respond to the situation right now. I have said in other speeches that the sanctions alone are not going to change the situation overnight in Ukraine. We are there on other fronts with military hardware and with logistics, both lethal and non-lethal, along with our NATO allies, to try to provide support to those who are courageously fighting for democracy, not only in Ukraine but around the world. I think Canadians need to understand that on a temporary basis, in the interim, we are going to be facing higher gas prices as part of the collective cost to fight the war in Ukraine, indirectly at this point, and I think we are all concerned about what this could represent in the days ahead with the changing sands in our foreign policy context.

I also want to take a moment to explain carbon pricing, because my Conservative colleagues in particular are highlighting their idea that the carbon price is unilaterally driving up gas prices and that it is the government's fault that things at the pump can sometimes be challenging. I want to debunk that, at least as it relates to my province of Nova Scotia, and then also speak about what this represents in backstop provinces that do not have an equivalent environmental plan to tackle emissions.

In Nova Scotia, particularly because of the work under the McNeil Liberal government, there has been tremendous effort undertaken to make our electricity grid and our power generation renewable. That has resulted in a higher cost to individuals, but there is no direct price on pollution levied at the pumps on gasoline.

I have had calls over the last couple of weeks about the price of gas and what the Government of Canada can do vis-à-vis the price on pollution. As it relates to Nova Scotia, a lot of that has already been implemented through our electricity rates. Monies that the government is collecting under its cap and trade system at the provincial level are being distributed toward important initiatives to help transition households, particularly vulnerable households, to a lower-carbon future.

Of course, in backstop provinces such as Ontario, essentially the way I like to describe it is that monies collected by the government on the carbon price are centralized and then distributed back to individuals on a per capita basis, which actually creates an incentive for individuals to change their behaviour. As a rural member in this House, I take notice that sometimes there are challenges if people do not have other options, and I think that this is a legitimate policy conversation that can be had, especially as the price on pollution advances in the days ahead.

I want to take a moment to discuss some of the initiatives our government has taken since 2015.

First, we introduced a $10‑a‑day child care spaces program, like the model in Quebec, to reduce the cost to families. I think this is very important because it helps parents get back to work and reduces costs for middle‑class and low‑income families. It is a great step by this government to advance the interests of families who need help.

I also want to talk about the Canada housing benefit. This is a program that is a portable benefit that has been delivered to individuals who are in need. We talk about affordable housing. That means different things to different people, but at the end of the day we are trying to put a program in place that allows an individual to move to different locations as their circumstances warrant, with support from the Government of Canada on the basis of their income. The traditional program has been that someone will be set up in a particular location and given their affordable rent. This program has a lot more merit and we need to continue to remind Canadians of the benefits it represents.

The Canada child benefit, again, has brought countless hundreds of thousands of Canadian children out of poverty and supported families. I do not need to go into great detail because one could look at Hansard and the testimony of members of Parliament about what this has meant for their loved ones and their families. It is truly making a difference and supports affordability, which is really what the text of this motion is about.

I am the member for Kings—Hants, in Nova Scotia. My riding is mostly rural and is made up of small communities of people who are, on average, older.

The guaranteed income supplement is very important for seniors and vulnerable people, which is why our government introduced measures to strengthen this program in the last Parliament.

Right now, we have commitments of course to extending that by $500 a month and we have strengthened old age security, which are other important measures relating to affordability.

I want to talk about the importance of intercity busing. I mentioned I am an MP in a rural area. The way the Government of Canada's programs are designed is that we have a lot of support that is accessible to the provinces to work with municipalities on transit in larger cities. However, if someone is vulnerable right now, does not have access to a vehicle and does not have the ability to afford the cost of a vehicle to get them from place to place, intercity busing is key.

The government has had other initiatives in the past. One point that is extremely important is looking at the investing in Canada infrastructure program and the bilaterals we have with the provinces and territories, and finding ways for flexibility to support intercity busing, particularly given the fact we have gone through COVID and there have been challenges.

The last thing I will say is that the text of this motion talks about eight cents on average that a temporary tax relief would give to the consumer. What I do not think has been discussed is whether we, as members of Parliament, should be also privy to that type of benefit. This comes down to an ideological choice of saying we can either just let an eight-cent reduction in gas prices on a temporary basis be available to everyone, including millionaires and people who really do not need that help, or we can continue to collect revenue as the government normally would and create a specific program that would be targeted to individuals who actually have challenges right now related to affordability.

I dare say there is not one member of Parliament in the House, on a salary of $180,000 a year, who needs eight cents back per litre at the pump. It is lower income Canadians who do. That is a fundamental flaw with the text of this motion. I look forward to taking questions from my hon. colleagues.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask a question. I want to thank the member for his speech. He does a very good job in the House.

I also represent a very rural riding. I know he does as well, but his riding could actually fit inside of my riding 19 times. That is how big my riding is.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

It is not the size of your riding that counts.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

It sure does, because people have to drive and people have to commute. The point I am trying to make is that the cost of fuel right now is exorbitant. It disproportionately impacts people who live in my riding who have to drive great distances to get to work and for their kids to play hockey, to play baseball or to go school. We have seen school closures over a number of years in a lot of these small towns, which have been systematically forgotten about by governments at all levels.

Saskatchewan put forward a climate plan based on the model that New Brunswick has. I would like to hear the member's thoughts on why the government cancelled or denied Saskatchewan's request to use the same plan that New Brunswick has?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, at 19 times the size, I can appreciate the challenges of getting to every corner of his riding and what that would represent. Even 5,000 square kilometres in Kings—Hants can sometimes feel daunting.

I do not have specific information to answer his question vis-à-vis the intergovernmental aspect of Saskatchewan versus New Brunswick. I will talk about affordability writ large. I think it is an important conversation to be had. We are seeing challenges, as I mentioned, because of the war in Ukraine, around food supplies and around fertilizer for farmers, which I know that member would know a lot about given the concentration he represents in his riding, so I do think we need to have conversations about affordability.

My issue is that the text of this motion is about eight cents per litre. I take notice that for some people that is a very big deal. However, the text of the motion is not very targeted. I think there are better ways to go about having targeted measures for Canadians who actually need the support, as opposed to having that member benefit from eight cents a litre. I think he would suggest he does not necessarily need it at this point.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Kings—Hants, who regularly comes up with practical solutions to very real problems.

I would like to ask him how he plans to reduce Quebec's sales tax, the QST, which is under provincial jurisdiction. Will there be some kind of compensation?

Is this the NDP's influence we are seeing?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I had just 10 minutes to talk about the text of the motion and some of the government's priorities, so I did not have an opportunity to discuss another mistake in the motion as written, which has to do with the Quebec tax. This motion would in fact interfere in an area under provincial jurisdiction. That is yet another error in the Conservatives' motion.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for bringing up child care. I can say that I am standing here today because of the Quebec model for $5 day care. In 1998, I was happy to take advantage of that. If the federal government had invested in day care many years earlier, there would be more women sitting in this chamber tonight.

I just want to mention to the member that what we are really talking about here is an affordability crisis in the country. With child care, it is a wonderful opportunity for families. Unfortunately, young people are deciding not to have families due to the rising cost of housing, food and living in Canada.

Could the member tell us why the Liberals continue to protect wealth-accumulating corporations and not do enough, very little or almost nothing, to ease the pressures on average Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet with the price of housing, the price of food and the cost of living?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Kings—Hants has 30 seconds.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, that is a lot to try to answer in 30 seconds.

Let me just say, as one of the younger members in the House at 31 years old, I have friends in that same situation of trying to be able to own a home and start a family. That resonates with me.

I do not have time to properly address the question vis-à-vis the larger policy context of whether or not it is prudent to continue to spend to try to create the affordability and support that Canadian families need or what other measures that are non-spending in a world of 5.7% inflation right now are going to be crucial to be able to make affordability important for Canadian families. I think it is an important conversation to be had, and I do think we will be hearing more about it in the House in the days ahead.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today to speak to the opposition day motion that has been introduced by the Conservative Party.

I just want to start by saying that I am glad to see such a motion being put forward today. It is a motion that actually addresses policy. It is a nice departure from what we typically see coming from across the way, which are motions that are geared more toward personal attacks on the Prime Minister or a particular minister. Rather, this is a motion that is actually discussing policy and putting forward a policy idea. Notwithstanding the fact that I disagree with this particular course of action, I am very grateful for the fact that what has been introduced by the Conservatives today through this opposition motion is of substance and can actually allow us to have a very good wholesome debate about a possible policy to implement in Canada.

When reading the text of the motion, the first thing that popped out to me was the issue in the motion with respect to GST, HST and the QST. The reason is that QST is the Quebec sales tax. It is a tax levied by the Quebec government. I am not sure how my Bloc Québécois colleagues feel about this, given that they stand up routinely for Quebec sovereignty in this House in terms of its ability to manage its own finances, but I find it perplexing that the Conservatives would bring forward a motion that would somehow allow the federal government to inject itself into the jurisdiction of Quebec, namely by creating options to rebate some sales taxes that are collected by Quebec. Perhaps that was not the intent of the motion. Perhaps the idea that the drafter of the motion had was something different, but at the end of the day that is certainly how it presents itself, at least in my reading of it.

I also find it very interesting that, for the six years I have been in the House, I have heard time and time again the Conservative Party criticize the government, quite often blaming the price of oil in Canada squarely on the Prime Minister as if it was his fault that the price of oil was so low that Alberta and other western provinces were not able to extract efficiently more oil out of the ground. Now, suddenly, they seem to be in a position where they are basically advocating that gas, which is made from oil, be now subsidized or the funds that are collected by the government with respect to that increase should now somehow be turned back over, basically criticizing the fact that the price of oil is now so high.

I think the issue I have the biggest concern with, as it relates to this opposition motion, is one that brings me back to my time as a city councillor and mayor of Kingston. One of the things that we relied upon quite seriously when building infrastructure in the city of Kingston was being able to rely on what was at least then called the gas tax, which is now called the Canada community-building fund. This is where a portion of that HST that is collected at the pumps is actually taken by the federal government and distributed right back to municipalities so that those municipalities can spend it on very important infrastructure projects in their communities. There are more than 650 community recipients of various different municipalities and jurisdictions within Ontario alone that receive funding through the former gas tax and now the Canada community-building fund, which totals roughly $816 million annually in Ontario alone.

It is very concerning that we might reduce, even just for a short term, the amount of money that can be collected and turned back over to municipalities to invest specifically in infrastructure. A lot of the time, at least in Kingston, we spent a lot of that gas tax money on improving the infrastructure within our transit network, everything from road rehabilitation right through to public transit, quite often relying on tourism perspectives to get people in and out of our community. We relied, as a municipality, quite heavily on that funding. I know a lot of municipalities throughout Ontario do that.

The AMO, the Association of Municipalities Ontario, does a very good job for the federal government of tracking exactly where that money is spent. We can go to its website to see where money from the gas tax, now known as the Canada community-building fund, is being distributed throughout the province of Ontario and know exactly how that money is being applied.

I am not surprised that the Conservatives want to perhaps take this position on the issue. If we look back, historically Stephen Harper had an absolutely horrible record at providing infrastructure money to municipalities throughout Canada. This government has taken a much different approach that says municipalities throughout Canada are our partners and that we will partner with them to make sure we are building the infrastructure they need not only for today, but more importantly for tomorrow. That is what this money is all about. That is the importance of collecting and redistributing the gas tax, now known as the Canada community-building fund, back to municipalities throughout Ontario.

I recognize that the Conservatives might have a different approach on this, and I respect that. I respect the fact that when they bring forward a motion like this, they might be signalling back to that style of engagement with municipalities. However, it certainly is not the manner in which this government has acted in looking at that relationship to build infrastructure with municipalities over the last six years, nor is it in any way an indication, if we look at the language coming from the finance minister, of what our plan is moving forward. We genuinely want to be there with municipalities to get them the funding they need to keep building infrastructure, and a huge portion of that comes through the Canada community-building fund and the collection of HST at the pumps. If members think about that, it is the people using the roads who are contributing to this fund. They are the ones who will be putting money into the fund through that tax, which will go back to investing in and building on the infrastructure they are using.

There is no doubt, and I will echo a lot of what has been said in the House today, that what we are seeing here is a rise in the price of gas. Members of the opposition continually try to suggest that this and inflation are somehow the responsibility of the Prime Minister. Somehow they think the Prime Minister of Canada, somebody who they have criticized for years as being unable to do anything, suddenly has the ability to arbitrarily affect the price of oil and gas throughout the world, and inflation for that matter. However, this is a global problem. This is a problem that has come largely from the war that Vladimir Putin began with Ukraine. We have seen why this is happening, and it is a stark reality of the situation throughout the world. This is the reality of what happens when countries become dependent on fossil fuels, and energy in particular, from other jurisdictions around the world. They become dependent and reliant on those other jurisdictions, and that is exactly what we are seeing.

When we look at what the leaders in other parts of the world, in particular in Europe, are saying, they want to move at a faster pace away from fossil fuels and transition to more renewable, sustainable sources. This leads me to my last point. Once again, the Conservatives are bringing forward a motion that is entirely based on fossil fuels. They have this incredible addiction to and obsession with oil in particular. They are unable to realize and recognize that we are moving away from oil. The world is moving away from oil. This is not a Liberal thing. It is not an NDP thing. It is not a Bloc thing. It is not a Green Party thing. The world is moving away from oil, and the Conservatives need to get on board, figure that out and become part of it so that we can capitalize on our opportunities in Canada to ensure that happens.

Even in the province of Alberta, the growth in the renewable energy sector is far outpacing any growth in the fossil fuel industry. Members are laughing at it as though they are concerned about it. We can look at the stats from Statistics Canada that relate to that growth. It is happening, and it is time that we get on board and be part of it.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite has raised a number of points. First of all, we are not talking about the community development fund and 10% a litre on gasoline. We are talking about the GST. There is crude oil. There are refinery costs. There are taxes: the provincial gas tax and the federal community development fund tax. That is all under the umbrella of the GST.

This is about giving a break to people who are having an incredibly hard time. We are not talking about lowering interest rates or paying for someone's rent. People on the Canada pension plan are going to pay higher amounts on their mortgages. We are talking about giving people a break. The International Energy Agency would disagree with the member when he says that the world is going off different types of oil and gas. As populations go up, they are going to continue to use more of it for the next 10 to 20 years at least.

Will the member say that the very least we can do here is give Canadians a true break and put a little more money in their jeans so they can cope with the cost of living that is increasing in this country?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have two points on that. The first is that we are talking about taking away the ability of the Government of Canada to continue to invest in municipalities. What does that do? When we take money away from municipalities, we are forcing municipalities to raise their property taxes.

Let me get back to the last point the member made. He made a point about what is happening with the oil and gas increases. I note that he said over the next 10 to 20 years. Guess what? We do not build pipelines to look at the short term, in 10 to 20 years. We build pipelines and set up massive extraction operations of oil to look toward what we are going to be doing 30 or 40 years from now.

The member is absolutely right that we are reliant on oil right now. What I said is that we are moving away from it. Will we entirely get off it? I highly doubt that, but we will significantly move away from it and this will affect our desire to continue to extract oil from the ground.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, this motion is about inflation, and I believe the prices of all goods are going up these days.

As my colleague said, there is no ignoring the housing crisis. A few weeks ago, Scotiabank, which is not exactly an organization that advocates for more social housing in Canada, published a study indicating that Canada is 1.8 million units short of the G7 average.

Five years ago, the federal government launched its big national housing strategy, which included plans to invest $72 billion. Recently, the National Housing Council, which oversees the implementation of the strategy, revealed that only 35,000 units have been built to date, even though we are halfway through the strategy's timeline. We now know that Canada needs another 1.8 million housing units.

Does my colleague not think that it might be time to launch a major social housing project in Canada?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I reject the premise of the question. The member said that the motion has to do with inflation. Inflation is not mentioned in here once. Housing is not mentioned in here once. What is talked about here is the rise in the price of gas. That is the result of a war that is going on in Europe right now. This is not a result of inflation.

My comment to the member is that I hope the Bloc Québécois is reflecting on the fact that the motion specifically calls on the federal government to jump into Quebec jurisdiction by affecting the Quebec sales tax. Does the member from the Bloc want to stand by that?

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, clearly the rising cost of gas is about inflation. In fact, Marc Lee, a senior economist at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, recently stated, “industry profits rebounded strongly in 2021 after the COVID-induced slowdown of 2020. For example, Canadian Natural Resources booked a record $7.7 billion profit.... This clearly shows it’s time to bring in a windfall profits tax on the oil and gas sector.” One of the obvious ways to address this cost-of-living crisis would be to tax profiteers like Suncor, which made a net profit of $4.1 billion and paid out $3.9 billion to its shareholders.

On the topic of inflation, affordability and taxation, why do the Liberals continue to protect wealth-accumulating corporations and do no nothing to ease the pressure on average Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, again, I reject that. The member is saying that this is entirely based on inflation. The price of gas has gone up considerably higher than inflation. If we were to talk about inflation only, the price of gas would not be where it is today. The price of gas, although inflation has affected it, has substantially increased not because of inflation, but because of a war that is going on in Europe. I know the NDP member knows that.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake.

Canadians are in the middle of an economic crisis that, as many know, is contributing to our mental health crisis. Gas prices and the costs of food and housing are at an all-time high, and this is truly hurting our country, our children, our seniors and our most vulnerable. We can do better. We can take action today. We can instantly give Canadians relief. This should not be about a coalition. I urge all MPs in the House to think about their constituents and vote to help them. This motion can help Canadians.

The motion being debated states:

(i) Canadians are facing severe hardship due to the dramatic escalation in gas prices,

(ii) the 5% collected under the Goods and Services Tax (GST), the Harmonized Sales Tax (HST), and the Quebec Sales Tax (QST) creates increased revenue for the federal government as fuel prices rise which compounds the pain on Canadian consumers and the economy,

the House call on the government to immediately provide relief at the pumps to all Canadians by introducing a temporary 5% reduction on gasoline and diesel whether collected under the GST, HST, or QST which would reduce the average price by approximately eight cents per litre.

I fully support this motion and call on the government to recognize the devastating impacts of the increased gas prices, to take action and to provide hope and relief for Canadians.

On Saturday, I asked a question on Facebook: “How has the increased cost of living impacted your daily decisions and habits?” The post received hundreds of upsetting comments, and I would like to share some of them with members today.

John wrote, “Being a single father and working fulltime I'm still unable to stay afloat. Between the cost of child care for an hour and a half 5 days a week and price of gas, I'm at a point where I'm deciding what bill/bills am I not going to pay this month in order to pay the insane rent pice and to feed my son.”

D'Arcy wrote, “I’ve owned a Mini Cooper for 12 years. I just traded it in for a Honda Civic as I can’t afford premium fuel anymore. Not to mention cut backs on food, and other things. The worse is not being able to see my daughter who lives in Calgary. The cost to drive up and get her is getting to be too much.”

Mike wrote, “Well I can't afford to even rent a room in a place let alone and apartment. So I've been living with different family members for the last 4 years!! So it's affected me pretty [badly] and I make $25 [an hour].”

Abby wrote, “I am going to purchase a horse and buggy bc I can't afford the gas and taking the bus doesn't work for a hockey mom with a baby on oxygen.”

Natalie wrote, “We are selling off things... next is my husband's vehicle and our atv..... we are running out of things to sell and that has me feeling overwhelmed.”

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

I hope members care about what constituents have to say. It would be nice if they would listen.

Kelly wrote, “I am not travelling to see my parents as often or eating as good as I should be especially with type 1 diabetes! The cost of food is crazy, they always seem to charge way more for healthy foods and the cost of living has sky rocketed but pay cheques or social assistance has not! How is it even possible for people to survive and live a comfortable healthy life?!! The stress is overwhelming.”

Shannon wrote, “I'm a registered nurse getting paid the same wage I was paid 13 years ago with no cost of living increase and starting to do the math on whether it makes sense for me to work at all anymore given what it will cost me to get there.”

Darlene wrote, “I am a Canada Post rural route contractor (I drive my own truck). I can't afford to work.”

When did we get to a place where people cannot afford to go to work? These stories are heartbreaking and the true reality of what Canadians are going through. I am of the belief that stories like these are a call to action. They indicate that Canadians are in need of financial relief, and it is our job in the House to listen, to act and to help.

Increased gas prices impact everyone. Small business owners must pay more for shipping and products, which translates into increased prices for customers. We can see how this is impacting our economy. If we cannot support our local businesses, they cannot pay their bills and will shut down.

Let us talk about how gas prices are devastating the people who feed us: our farmers.

Kevin wrote to me saying that he is a farmer and it is definitely not fun. He described that the amount of money going out of all farmers' pockets is constantly increasing. They all do what they can to watch their profit margins, but one thing they need, no matter what, is fuel, and they usually use the same amount year after year. He said that they are the ones feeding the world, but he feels like they have to pay a punishing price to do so.

How are we expected to attract the next generation of farmers when they continue to go further and further into debt? Did members know farmers have one of the highest suicide rates of any career? Let us not forget to take a moment and remember the saying, "If you ate today, thank a farmer.”

Now, let us talk about children. Parents and caregivers are forced to make a decision to pull their kids out of sports and extracurricular activities because there is no extra money or they cannot afford to drive them. This is wrong. Kids have suffered enough these past two years. They need their friends. They need physical fitness.

Parents and caregivers and seniors cannot afford nutritious food. This is wrong. Nutritious food is critical and is directly linked to health and wellness. We cannot afford to further strain our health care system. I have seniors in my riding of Peterborough—Kawartha who are eating cat food. We can do better. We must do better. This motion today can offer relief and hope. I urge the new Liberal-NDP government to consider this motion.

People may not think that prices at the gas pumps are linked to our opioid crisis, but they are. Anxiety, depression and addiction are being exacerbated from the stress of an increased cost of living. As one constituent said to me, “I no longer live. I just try to survive.” This quote made me think about our tourism industry.

As shadow minister for tourism, I can say this industry was the first hit and the hardest-hit, and it will be the last to recover. Some people will tell us that travel is a privilege. What about the people who are employed because of the travel industry? What about the dog kennel owner who may lose his business because people cannot afford to travel so they are not using the kennel? What happens to him?

What about people who cannot afford to visit their friends and family because gas is too expensive? How do they think that impacts their mental health, their productivity at work and their relationships? This has a domino effect. Not being able to afford to feed their family or to put gas in their vehicle is devastating and immeasurable. It affects everyone.

Allison, a constituent, wrote to me about how the gas prices are impacting her family. She wrote that she hardly leaves the house. He family is eating up the freezer selections instead of buying fresh and deciding if a home purchase in Barbados is a better way to invest instead of here as everything is hundreds of thousands of dollars overpriced.

Canada is supposed to be the best place in the world to live. People are truly thinking of leaving. We can help. We can offer a 5% reduction on gasoline and diesel. I urge everyone in this House to vote in favour of this motion.

We need to get back to a place of being able to use the money in our bank to pay for necessities, not racking up debt on credit cards. We need to give Canadians the ability to afford to go to work, give kids the opportunity to be able to go to their taekwondo class or gymnastics, and allow seniors to have the dignity to buy healthy food. Let us get the number of people using food banks down.

Canadians need a break. They are exhausted. They are drained. They are traumatized. This motion is a break. I will be voting for it.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, this motion would essentially ask that all individuals get the exact same rebate when they are filling up for gas. I am very fortunate that I can afford the extra amount. Given the fact that I have a good job, I am able to do that. I imagine that this member is in the same position as me.

Does she not think that it would be better to take money that has been collected and make sure it is invested in those, like those she mentioned, who are struggling the most? Is that not what social programs are all about, which is the redistribution of wealth as opposed to giving breaks to individuals who might not necessarily need it, like me or, as I would suggest, like her?

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate the hon. member does not know my situation as a single mom with six children, but I appreciate it. It is very important that we recognize that everybody needs a break right now. Without a healthy economy, we do not have a surplus to put back into social services. That is not how it works. We need a healthy economy.

If people cannot afford to spend money at local businesses and people cannot afford to buy groceries, there is no surplus to put back into social services. The compassionate thing to do here is to help people with their ability to pay their bills so that they do not have that stress at night. This is a mental health crisis.