Debates of March 22nd, 2022

Opposition Motion—Tax Reduction on Gasoline and Diesel

[An hon. member]

Yes, Alberta has. All the provincial parliaments have.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I would like to make sure we have a question and an answer. If members want to ask questions, they can ask a question and even make a comment.

The hon. member for Brandon—Souris.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Calgary is right. He just answered the member for Winnipeg North's question, and I am proud to reiterate what he was saying.

The member for Winnipeg North was the one who was laughing when I got up and during the first two lines of my speech about how life is getting expensive and inflation is the highest it has been in a generation. I do not know where he has been. His own constituents in Winnipeg North have to feel the same as what I just described in my speech.

My colleague from Calgary is right. The provincial government of Alberta does not have a PST to start with, so that is a big break. My federal colleague from Winnipeg North could use his power to reduce a tax on a tax, which he is proposing to continue to have. That is also on top of the GST.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

We will continue with questions and comments.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Order. As much as I do not mind a bit of banter back and forth, we are not going to call each other names. I have let a lot go here and maybe that is what is creating this free flow. I want to make sure we are not calling each other names. I do not mind a quick snap once in a while, but let us not start that.

The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am always surprised by this ability to put on blinders. The price of oil definitely includes taxes, but it is also determined by the oil companies themselves.

The price per barrel of Brent crude doubled from March 2021 to March 2022, rising from $64 to $128. Oil companies also make a profit on refining a barrel of oil. The profit margin went from $1.15 in February 2021 to $4.40 in February 2022.

The profits from Brent and oil refining do not go to the government. They go to the oil companies. They are the ones exerting upward pressure on gas prices. I agree that supply and demand is a factor, but greed also has a role to play here.

When will the government take action against the oil companies, which are lining their pockets to benefit their shareholders rather than workers, the government and the people?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a simple answer for my hon. colleague: yes. My colleague from Abbotsford talked about the increases in oil prices, and I just want to add that they have gone up 30% since we came back to the House after the new year. If she thinks that is due to the gouging, which is the word I heard earlier, from the oil companies, she is definitely wrong.

There are profits to be made in this industry, but the biggest one is the taxes that are on the cost of fuel today, and the increase puts a lot more money in the government's coffers than it did in those of the oil companies. That is why we are reasonably asking today for the GST to be taken off of the price of gas. The government has the full authority and mandate to do that overnight.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was surprised to hear the Conservatives say there is no evidence of price gouging. I invite the hon. member to come north of Highway 17, where we often pay 30¢ more a litre in towns such as Kirkland Lake and Timmins than they pay in southern Ontario. In 2019, the British Columbia Utilities Commission, under the New Democrats, found out there was price gouging of at least 13¢ a litre.

Does the hon. member agree that we need to push the Competition Bureau to start making sure that in isolated, northern communities, we are not getting ripped off at the pumps because of these arguments that we are a little further away from the centre? If we deal with price gouging, people will at least have a fair chance, especially with the outrageous prices we are paying because of Putin's war.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am on the natural resources committee with my colleague and yes, there is some gouging at all levels of the pricing of the cost of fuels in Canada and perhaps not just within our fossil fuel area.

Coming from a farming background, I know exactly what has happened to the price of fertilizer in the last year. It has doubled for both nitrogen and phosphorus. They are coming from natural gas products in those areas, so there are exacerbations in the increases of these products due to things like the Suez Canal blockade. That started that whole process in fertilizer pricing of the changes of costs, and the delivery mechanisms have slowed because of COVID.

We have certainly got a problem with the taxes on taxes the government has today. All I am saying is there is something that the government can do immediately and it is not doing it.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to take part in today's debate.

I have not had an opportunity to congratulate the member for Abbotsford on his new role in the House. I would like to do that now. Of course, this is a return to a role he held previously, and I am always excited to work with a fellow British Columbian on policy.

The motion under consideration before us today brings to mind the musings of a 20th century journalist who said that for every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, elegant and wrong. Make no mistake, our government cares about tackling global inflation and making life more affordable. In fact, I gave a speech in the House yesterday where I outlined many of the very real solutions our government has put forward to make life more affordable. I will raise some of these initiatives later on in my speech, but I would first like to turn to the issue of rising energy prices.

Certainly we can all agree that the problem of rising gasoline prices is a complex one that must be seriously considered. Canadians and people around the world are facing higher prices at the gas pump as a result of the unprecedented challenge of restarting the world's economy in the wake of a global pandemic and the significant global oil market disruptions arising as a result of Russia's illegal war in Ukraine.

The proposed solution is wrong because gas taxes represent a small portion of the total price that consumers pay at the pump, so cutting them would be ineffective in protecting Canadians from these global market forces. Daily changes in gas prices can be greater than the 5% proposed in today's motion. That means that any positive impact of the proposed fuel tax cut could be wiped out the day after it was implemented. Canadians could literally wake up paying the same price for gas as they did the day before.

The government would also be in the uneasy position of having spent tens, if not hundreds of millions, of dollars trying to unsuccessfully fight market forces over which it has very little control. What would happen then? Would the opposition have us further cut gas taxes? How long would the measures last?

More importantly, what programs would the Conservatives cut to make up for the shortfall in revenue? They voted against our tax cuts for the middle class. They voted against decreasing the age of retirement from 67 to 65. These are all programs that make life more affordable for Canadians, but also programs the Conservatives would rather us do without.

It is interesting, but it seems that, according to the Conservatives, the solution to almost every problem we face in Canada can be solved by further subsidizing the oil and gas sector. Our government has cut taxes for the middle class twice, reduced the cost of child care, improved retirement security and made post-secondary education more affordable. The Conservatives vote against these important measures and then move a motion to cut the funding source for these important programs, which actually do make life more affordable for Canadian families.

This is because taxes help pay for the government programs and services that benefit Canadians. They provide a safety net on which all Canadians can rely in times of crisis and allow us to make the sort of investments that could help our economy grow and create more opportunities for future generations. Funding these investments means ensuring that everyone pays their fair share of tax, and taxes on gas are an important component of the Canadian tax system in this regard.

Moreover, there are very real costs associated with fuel consumption with respect to carbon pollution and climate change, which all Canadians have to pay when fuel is consumed and released into the atmosphere. The member for Abbotsford knows all too well the very real costs of the floods and forest fires that have affected so many families in British Columbia and across Canada. The fact is that climate change presents a threat to our long-term health and economic prosperity. Putting a price on carbon pollution is the most effective policy to address it.

Fortunately our government, along with most Canadians and provincial governments, understand this. That is why we recently confirmed our plan to increase the carbon price through to 2030. At the same time, we will continue to return the direct proceeds from the federal carbon pollution pricing system to their province or territory of origin. In jurisdictions that do not have their own fuel charge consistent with the federal backstop criteria, such as Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, approximately 90% of direct proceeds from the fuel charge are returned to the residents of those provinces through climate action incentive payments. As a result, in most households, these climate payments actually represent more than the increased costs they face from the federal carbon pricing system.

What is more, the remaining fuel charge proceeds are used to support small businesses, farmers, indigenous groups and other organizations. Going forward, the federal carbon price will continue to be revenue-neutral for the Government of Canada.

This is one thing that has always confused me about the contemporary Conservative policy. In 2019, Conservatives promised to eliminate carbon pricing entirely, a strange promise as both the member for Abbotsford and I live in B.C., where a price on carbon has been in place for more than 10 years. That particular promise essentially meant no savings for British Columbians and no fighting climate change in other jurisdictions. This of course is a lose-lose proposition for the people of British Columbia. It would be much more effective to ensure that the B.C. carbon price is revenue-neutral, a position I have supported since its inception.

In 2021, Conservatives reversed their position and promised to eliminate carbon pricing by getting rid of our revenue-neutral system and creating a less efficient special bank account where they would collect money on Canadians' behalf and tell them how to spend it. Now in 2022, Conservatives are again calling to eliminate carbon pricing, basically abandoning any real or serious climate plan that will allow us to hit our IPCC targets.

This motion in itself would potentially save up to eight cents a litre, which is remarkably close to the current carbon price of approximately 8.8¢ per litre. With revenue-neutral carbon pricing in place, we are making sure Canadians and Canadian businesses have positive incentives to make consumer choices that are good for them and good for the environment, and that encourage innovation and create clean solutions that Canada will be able to export to the world as demand for clean technology continues to grow rapidly.

Our policy is benefiting the majority of Canadian families, helping to fight climate change and helping to create clean jobs. I am confident that any future generation who might study contemporary Conservative climate policy or the lack thereof would see it as short-sighted and not meeting the real needs and challenges that Canadians are facing today.

At the same time, I think we could all agree that it is important that our government continues to focus on measures that make life in Canada more affordable for the average family. That is why our government is cutting taxes for the middle class while raising them on the wealthiest 1%. We have delivered on that commitment in real terms.

We have increased support for families and low-income workers through programs such as the Canada child benefit and the Canada workers benefit, which have helped lift over one million Canadians out of poverty since 2015, including 435,000 children. In fact, our anti-poverty measures helped reduce Canada’s poverty rate to all-time historic lows. We have increased the guaranteed income supplement top-up benefit for low-income seniors and enhanced the GIS earnings exemption, and we are increasing old age security for Canadians aged 75 and older in July of this year.

As well, to protect Canadians from the impact of inflation, the government indexes the Canada child benefit to inflation, as well as the Canada pension plan, old age security, the guaranteed income supplement, the goods and services tax credit and other benefits that our most vulnerable Canadians rely on. This means that, as inflation rises, so too do these benefits. To further offset the impact of inflation and make life more affordable, we have increased the basic personal amount that Canadians could earn before paying any federal income tax. To ensure that this support is targeted at the middle class, the benefits of the increased exemption are phased out for high-income taxpayers.

When this measure is fully implemented next year, single individuals will pay $300 less in tax each year and families will pay $600 less. We are also working with provinces and territories to implement a Canada-wide, $10-a-day, community-based early learning and child care system that will make life more affordable for families, create new jobs, get parents back into the workforce and grow the middle class, while giving every child a real and fair chance at success. These are the right ways for the government to make life more affordable and offset the impact of inflation.

I have primarily discussed government fiscal policy, but I think it is worth discussing monetary policy as well. A strong monetary policy framework is also crucial to keeping prices stable and keeping inflationary pressures in check. Our government and the Bank of Canada believe that monetary policy could best serve Canadians by continuing to focus on price stability. That is why, last December, the government and the Bank of Canada announced the renewal of the 2% inflation target for another five-year period.

The renewed framework will keep the bank focused on delivering low, stable and predictable inflation in Canada. Since Canada's adoption of the inflation-targeting framework 30 years ago, inflation has averaged close to 2%, which has contributed to our country's strong labour market performance, to our economy's growth and to our prosperity. Maintaining a stable environment for the prices that Canadians pay is the paramount objective for Canada's monetary policy. That policy is independently administered by the Bank of Canada and has been tremendously successful since its implementation.

There are very real challenges with regard to global inflation and strong fiscal and monetary policies help Canadians work through these challenges. These are the right ways to make life more affordable for Canadians and protect them from the impacts of inflation.

The proposal put forward in today's motion is not. It is wrong because it would be ineffective and it would be costly. It is wrong because it would undermine important goals like protecting Canadians from the impact of climate change and ensuring we can afford to invest in our highest priorities. It is wrong because the federal government does not have the authority to cut the Quebec sales tax, and it is wrong because our government is already taking more effective and appropriate steps to make life affordable for Canadians and protect them from the impacts of inflation.

I am thankful for the opportunity to make this case.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Burnaby North—Seymour for his thoughtful speech on this Conservative opposition day motion. However, one of the things I feel is lacking in his response is a real concern about the immediacy of the crisis many Canadians are facing in their household budgets when it comes to increasing prices.

While I agree with his statement of the long-term things that we must do, what exactly does the Liberal government have in mind to help out those people who are finding it hard to make ends meet at the end of the month?

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is true. There is an immediacy to this crisis and we need to make sure that we are tackling inflationary pressures right away. Certainly we had economists come and speak at the finance committee who talked about making sure that expected inflation is not anchored into the economy.

We have taken concrete measures that have helped with affordability and are going to help Canadians deal with these inflationary pressures. They include reduced costs of child care, which is going to not only reduce costs for families but give those children a better head start. That is going to provide benefits to Canadians in the long term, but it is also going to help those family members get back to work and give them more flexibility around their jobs.

We have implemented real changes that have helped seniors and students, and we have a national housing strategy that is working to make life more affordable and allow individuals to be able to afford their first homes as well. Those are some of the measures. There are many more and hopefully I will be able to talk about them in further questions.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, in which he talked about the importance of helping Canadians get through this inflationary period. He talked about helping families, but there is another group of people living on fixed incomes and that is seniors.

My colleague just talked about an affordable housing strategy. Having an affordable place to live is one thing, but having a fixed income is another.

Does my colleague understand that seniors need help? The government is planning to help those 75 and over by upping old age security, but seniors 65 and up need help too. That is what it means to help people on fixed incomes who need support during this inflationary period.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is one of the most important challenges that we as a government have to tackle. When it comes to our most vulnerable seniors, we needed to make sure that every Canadian retires in dignity and that is why our government moved to reverse the Conservative change that increased the age of eligibility for retirement to 67 years. We lowered that back down to age 65, which gives thousands of dollars to seniors right when they need it at retirement.

We have also moved to increase the OAS and the GIS to make sure that seniors have the resources they need. Importantly, and this is crucial, we are indexing those measures to inflation, which means that, as inflationary pressures grow, those benefits will grow as well.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member for Burnaby North—Seymour's thoughtful response to this motion this morning. I appreciate his focus on measures that would address affordability. If we are talking about affordability in this place, we should be talking about affordability for those who need it most and recognizing that it is Canadians with disabilities who are disproportionately living in poverty. Up to 40% of those living in poverty across the country are Canadians with disabilities.

I wonder if the member would comment on the need to go further and to fast-track a Canada disability benefit or any other measure he would put forward in order to meaningfully address affordability for a group of people across the country who need it most.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for raising the issue of Canadians with disabilities. I have members of my own family who are in that situation and there are many families in my constituency of Burnaby North—Seymour who are also in that situation.

The member opposite is correct that we need to do more to make sure that individuals with disabilities have the supports they need, not just the financial supports but the accessibility supports and the ability for many individuals with accessibility issues to be strong members of our workforce. Canada does not want to have any members of our team sitting on the bench when it is not necessary to do so. I would be very happy to sit down with that member to discuss any ideas he has on how we can go further.

I can guarantee that any funding for programs that are going to help vulnerable Canadians with disabilities, who are also trying to deal with an inflationary crisis, would not be helped by the motion that is on the table today. In fact, it would cut revenue that could be invested in programs that could help Canadians with disabilities.

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

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

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Mr. Speaker, certainly I do not think anyone in this House on any side or any aisle would dispute the impact of the illegal war in Ukraine on energy prices. That, of course, is putting further pressure on a global inflationary environment that has seen pressures from supply-chain bottlenecks, that has seen pressures from climate change, that has seen pressures from increased demand on hard goods as opposed to services during the pandemic and, of course, seen pressure from the reopening of the global economy from the pandemic.

While the member for Abbotsford is correct that inflation in Canada is currently at 5.7% and that we need to work to reduce that inflation, I would remind him that our health-based and economic-based policy has led to better results than our neighbour's results in the U.S., where the inflation rate is at 7.5%. Of course Canada's average is less than the OECD, which is at 6.5%, and lower than the G20 average, which is at 6.1%.

Therefore, in all, through measures that our government is taking, Canada is working to tackle the inflation crisis and to improve affordability for Canadian families.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the cheering crowd has me feeling generous, so I will be sharing my time with the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

The member for Abbotsford's motion reminded me of a university class I used to teach on populism. A fairly simple definition of populism is proposing simplistic solutions to complex problems. Inflation is a complex problem to which people can propose simplistic solutions. Let us unpack that together.

One good approach to analyzing populism is to look at populist themes, which I find even more interesting. What are those? A stock populist theme is telling people we are going to put more money in their pockets. Beware of politicians who say that. It is not as though public services pay for themselves. These are tough times. COVID‑19 put our health care system through the wringer. We need health transfers, and that money does not grow on trees. It comes from taxes. Nevertheless there will always be politicians who say they are going to put more money back in people's pockets. That is a populist theme.

Another populist theme involves denying global warming. Some people simply want to keep things as they are and not make any effort, because they believe global warming does not exist, so the oil and gas sector is not to blame. People who study populism often see this type of discourse.

To my great delight, both of these populist themes have been included in the motion moved by my Conservative colleagues. We are not in an election period, but I already have concerns about the electoral intent of provoking discontent among the population. It seems to me that that is what this motion is all about.

I say this because that kind of discourse is completely inconsistent. During the last election campaign, the leader of the Conservative Party came to Quebec and said that he would respect Quebec's jurisdictions. This motion proposes that the House reduce the GST, which is perfectly feasible, because the GST is federal. It also proposes reducing the QST, the Quebec sales tax, which I think is entirely impossible. The House of Commons can adopt as many motions as it likes, but it cannot change Quebec's laws. Suggesting to Canadians that Ottawa can reduce the QST is pure fiction. This is really just a figure of speech, a kind of populism.

The other thing the motion calls for is a 5% reduction of the price of gasoline at the pumps. That may appear to be interesting and attractive. It is easy to understand and is just another populist theme. In the meantime, their motion was tabled on March 17 and gas prices have already gone down by 5%. In fact, the purpose of the motion is to use inflation to rally the discontented.

Then the Conservatives also talk about a temporary reduction. I wonder what they mean by “temporary”. In the context of fighting climate change, when we really should not be giving people any incentive to consume more gas but instead maybe encourage them to use an electric vehicle, I wonder what temporary means. The motion says that “the House call[s] on the government to immediately provide relief at the pumps to all Canadians”. If that is not an attempt to get people to consume more oil, then I do not know what is.

Another key aspect of my colleagues' motion is a very Conservative intention to get everyone but the oil companies to pay. The oil companies are the main beneficiaries of the increased price of crude oil. It is not the government who is pocketing the huge profits being made at the extraction stage with the increased price of oil, it is the oil companies.

However, that is not all. Oil companies also pocket exorbitant profits at the refining stage. The refining margin, or the amount oil companies charge to refine crude oil, has quadrupled in one year, rising from $1.15 U.S. per barrel in February 2021 to $4.40 U.S. today. We might wonder who benefits here. Certainly it is not the government that benefits from the rising price of oil and refinery costs.

According to the Conservatives, the government is never generous enough towards the oil companies. The best way to protect consumers from the oil companies that are fleecing them is to ensure that the oil industry contributes to relief measures for Canadians who bear the burden these companies have created.

Just yesterday, the Conservatives opposed the idea of asking the oil companies for a special contribution to finance measures that would help Canadians deal with inflation. With today's motion, the Conservatives are proposing that all taxpayers contribute to the relief for gas consumers, whether through taxes or service cuts. To put it bluntly, that is a very bad idea.

In conclusion, I want to say that being irrational is the worst thing that a politician can do. Being rational is essential in politics. We must be aware of where our own interests lie, because many things can make us act irrationally. Love makes us irrational. I am irrational when it comes to my partner. I often forget my own interests.

Allow me to explain by referring to French singer Johnny Hallyday. Although I am not a big fan, some of my colleagues may know him. Some might say that Johnny Hallyday sounds a little irrational when he cries out about his feelings of love. That is the kind of irrationality that comes with love. I sense something irrational when I hear my Conservative friends shouting, “build a pipeline”.

The background on my phone is a photo of my son and my partner. On my computer, it is a Quebec flag. I am also irrational when it comes to Quebec. When I look at my Conservative colleagues' computers, I always see “I love oil and gas”. That is irrational.

Much like I have an indescribable love for my partner, the Conservatives have an irrational love for oil, and they cannot get out from under that spell. This irrational love can make our political processes ineffective because the oil lobby is given too much weight.

Let us see what is coming down the pike. Oil Change International estimates that the federal government invested $78 billion to support the oil and gas industry in 2019–20 alone. In 2015–17, it invested $111 billion. Export Development Canada hands out $14 billion to the oil and gas sector every year. We paid $21 billion for a pipeline.

At the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, I am currently studying carbon capture and sequestration strategies. Everyone agrees that they do not work. However, billions of dollars will be invested in them. Moreover, the Conservative Party is telling us today that if we want to solve the inflation problem, we might have to give the oil companies more money. That is the epitome of irrationality.

What I am hearing from the Conservatives is all the more shocking because the Liberal Party is caught up in this crazy fossil fuels spiral and it, too, feels compelled to add to it. Canada is therefore trapped in the oil industry's stranglehold and it cannot escape it. Everything is analyzed from the oil industry's perspective. The Conservatives are analyzing the crisis in Ukraine solely in terms of the oil industry. It is outrageous.

Now inflation is only being analyzed from the oil industry's perspective. This is very dangerous. I therefore call on my Conservative colleagues to see the light at the end of the tunnel and put an end to this toxic relationship they have with oil. I am doing this for their own good.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we know that times are tough for Canadians. Costs are rising, and it is hard to make ends meet.

I would like to ask my colleague if he has any ideas for the federal government to help Canadians pay their bills during these difficult times. Does he have any suggestions for helping people make ends meet at the end of the month?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the first thing the federal government can do would be to respect its areas of jurisdiction.

We can see that the NDP has reached an agreement with the Liberals. We will have dental and drug coverage, which is not the responsibility of the federal government, but hey, if it makes them happy.

Perhaps the federal government could respect its areas of jurisdiction and the purchasing power of seniors, the only ones who have been left out throughout the pandemic. That might be a good thing. If we want to fight inflation, we need to support the most vulnerable people. That does not seem to be a priority in the Liberal-NDP alliance, but that is another matter.

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

Mr. Speaker, to pick up on the theme of love, I have a love for our country, Canada. The government needs to provide many support programs, whether they are for seniors, such as the 10% increase for those 75 and older or the GIS increases or the many other types of programs that the government needs to provide to support real people in tangible ways.

I wonder if my colleague could continue his thoughts on how important it is to have revenues to provide these programs, and how the revenue comes from a multitude of sources, including oil and gas.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right.

I rarely agree with my colleague from Winnipeg North, but I agree with him. We need revenue to support seniors. I can easily find some revenue for him. If we stopped supporting the oil and gas industry, we would have some revenue.

From 2015 to 2017, $111 billion was allocated to support the most polluting sector in the world. We must reconsider this. From 2018 to 2020, $78 billion was allocated. Maybe if we ended all these oil and gas subsidies, we could use that money to do something more logical, by which I mean increase health transfers.

I invite members to think about that. That is a good starting point.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, logically speaking, if not for oil, we would be standing naked in the House of Commons.

Oil is used for many things besides gas for our cars. We were lucky we had oil to get the goods we needed to fight the pandemic. That said, my colleague comes from Lac-Saint-Jean, an area far from major centres. I am guessing that the people of Lac-Saint-Jean need gas to get around. Paying 5% less for gas would be a good thing.

What would my colleague propose as an alternative?