Debates of March 22nd, 2022

Opposition Motion—Tax Reduction on Gasoline and Diesel

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, I feel my Conservative friends' motion is primarily about supporting the oil companies.

There are a whole host of measures that could be taken to combat inflation. The current climate emergency must also be a priority. We therefore need to find ways to move toward energies of the future and fight inflation in all sorts of other ways. I would love to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

I would also like to say that federal government does not have the authority to change the QST in Quebec or the GST in the rest of Canada. That falls under provincial jurisdiction.

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

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.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I share her concern about the affordability crisis and the cost of living in our country. I do find, however, that the Conservative policy proposal is rather narrow in its scope. She mentioned that everybody needs a break and I cannot agree more, yet this motion only deals with people who drive.

There are so many people who are struggling with the cost of living who cannot afford to drive. The average cost of car ownership the last time I checked, which was several years ago, was $9,000 per year. There are seniors who do not drive. There are young people who do not drive. There are people who do not drive gas vehicles. None of those people benefit from this motion.

Why did my colleague and her party not consider a more broad initiative that would truly help every Canadian with the affordability crisis?

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

Madam Speaker, I completely disagree. If he has listened to what I said in my speech, he would have heard the increased cost of gas impacts everyone. Whether someone drives or not, it is impacting every business, like a business owner who can no longer afford to pay the bills. It does not matter if one has a car. The cost of everything is going to go up.

I have received hundreds of messages since I started talking about this today from people who need to rely on transportation, but the cost of everything and the cost of a bus is going to go up. The cost of food at the store is going to go up. This is impacting every single person, and we have thought of that.

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

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Flamborough—Glanbrook, Housing; the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Health; the hon. member for Kitchener Centre, Government Program.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake has the floor.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

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.

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

Madam Speaker, just a quick note, I have many constituents who have either made their start in life in Fort McMurray or are still residing there, so I think there are a lot of common connections between our two provinces.

In my remarks earlier today, I thanked the member for Abbotsford for bringing forward a conversation about affordability, but I did say that I was concerned about the text of the motion. Eight cents a litre is important, particularly for residents who are very vulnerable. This is something that could provide immediate relief. My worry is that it is not very targeted.

Would my colleague opposite agree that, by going with this approach, it is providing eight cents to everyone across the board? We as members of Parliament make about $180,000 a year. There are other people who are quite wealthy. I do not think that they need eight cents a litre or four dollars on a tank of gas. I would rather actually have more support by government collecting the money and redistributing it on the basis of need.

Would she agree with the idea that the way it is currently worded, it is actually going to reward people that really do not need the help at this point?

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

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.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

You stated earlier today that this motion was one option, but it certainly is not because we cannot support it. Furthermore, the House cannot cut the GST or the HST in Canada. The House can adopt any motion it wants, but it is unable to take action in that regard.

You spoke about your riding; mine is enormous—

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

Order. I would remind the member that she must address the Chair.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

My colleague spoke about her riding. My riding of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou is huge. There is a lot of ground to cover. I understand very well what she is saying; however I believe that instead we should be helping seniors or finding ways to help the disadvantaged.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

I think she highlighted some important points since she and I both represent large, rural ridings. I believe it is very important to do what we can to ensure that we are working with all the provinces to get help and reduce the cost of gas across Canada.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am trying to understand the Conservatives' position on affordability. I was in the House when the Conservatives voted against raising the minimum wage for Canadians, when the Conservatives voted against raising corporate taxes on the windfall profits of corporations making billions of dollars per year, when Conservatives voted against pharmacare that would save the average family in this country over $600 a year and businesses about $700 a year and when Conservatives voted against a dental care plan that would allow Canadians to fix their teeth and not have to pay out of pocket with their hard-earned dollars.

Can the hon. colleague explain to me how any Canadian can take the Conservatives seriously on affordability when their record of voting stands so starkly against positive, constructive measures that would help average Canadians actually save money in their real lives?

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, as the member probably is aware, I was elected in 2021, so many of the measures he discussed are not on my voting record. However, I do support my colleagues in fighting for Canadians. I am proud of the Conservative record in supporting Canadians all across this country and fighting for affordability.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think this is the first opportunity I have had to put a question to our new colleague, who is doing such a great job, the hon. member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake.

Is she aware of the recommendations from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls that every Canadian must have access to affordable ground transportation? The loss of lives along the Highway of Tears has much to do with the fact that indigenous women and girls are forced to hitchhike. The description of her situation in northern Alberta suggests we need bus transportation and trains across this country.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, perhaps I misspoke at some point. There actually is a bus service that goes from Fort McMurray down through Edmonton and all the way to Calgary. It is called the Red Arrow, and it is a spectacular service. In my time as an MLA, I took the Red Arrow on a few occasions because it would cost less money, it was a more humane way to travel and it was better for the environment.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, one of the issues within the motion that I am sure Bloc members are concerned about is that the Conservatives' proposal could be perceived as something that would take away from provincial jurisdiction regarding the tax on gas in the province of Quebec.

Could the member add some further comment? The member made some reference to it, and I would be very much interested in how she perceives the motion from that perspective.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his question. He is absolutely right.

I did not mention it in my speech, but some of my colleagues did. It is so obvious that the QST belongs to Quebec. No federal legislation will override our QST legislation. It is as clear as that.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about the environmental impact that future lithium mines will have. These mines will be found worldwide with the advent of electric vehicles.

Could she also tell me about the environmental impact that waste from these batteries will unfortunately cause and that will linger for the next 500 years?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

My colleague does not have the good fortune to sit on the excellent House Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. Last year, I put forward a motion to develop a federal zero-emissions law. From the testimony we heard, we learned that there is a company in Montreal that recycles batteries from electric cars for the purpose of putting them back into new electric cars.

The electrification of transportation is moving forward at breakneck speed. Week by week, things are changing and discoveries are being made. At the University of Sherbrooke, they are working on electrolyte batteries that would increase the distance travelled and reduce charging time. There is a lot of research and development going on in this area; it is a beautiful thing. We talk about it sometimes in committee.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from the Bloc for what I believe to be a remarkable speech. We have really hit, in many ways, the crux of the issue facing Canadians today, which is the fact that we are not spending enough on those who need that support. We are not even making sure that those who are profiteering are paying their fair share, and the member highlighted that there is a relationship between these two things. Those who profit and those who exceedingly use that profit to do less justice for our tax system are actually depriving those who need it most, including seniors. I was touched by the fact that the member encouraged support in the House for seniors, for example to increase OAS, which is something that constituents in my community have been calling for for decades.

I would ask the member to expand for a few moments on how valuable expanding OAS is for ensuring that seniors have the dignity and security they need while moving into this crisis.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Yes, we could help seniors directly by increasing the guaranteed income supplement and old age security.

I will make a connection with food, which is a very important issue to talk about. It is often said that seniors living alone do not eat properly and sometimes have to choose between food and medication because inflation is too high. I always put that in the context of the environment. Consider the droughts in western Canada and the wildfires that have caused crop failures and increased the price of food for everyone, including seniors. The consequences of the climate crisis ultimately are that we are paying more and inflation is rising. Fighting climate change involves dealing with everything that is very human, particularly people's health.

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

Madam Speaker, all afternoon, we have heard the various points of view on the motion, which basically aims to help the most disadvantaged.

However, I would like my colleague to provide more details about means other than oil that could be used to help the most disadvantaged.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke at length just now about social and community housing.

I would like to share a very personal story. My son, who is 30 years old, does not have a car, so he does not have to pay at the pump, but he does live in an apartment. He has a hard time making ends meet, and sometimes mom and dad have to help him little.

If we had more social housing and community housing, we could help young people like him. Lots of people do not have cars. It does not always have to be about oil, oil—