Debates of June 7th, 2022

Opposition Motion—Measures for Immediate Financial Relief

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

Madam Speaker, the member talked about hearing from constituents in the riding.

When I look at the text of the motion, I see a series of different principles that the Conservatives have put forward. One relates to the GST on fuel. As a member of Parliament who makes almost $200,000 a year in terms of my work, and the member opposite would probably be somewhere in the same range, why would she think that eliminating GST on all gas is a targeted measure?

I agree with the principle that perhaps the government should look at the GST and make this measure specific to individuals who have lower incomes, but the way the Conservatives are proposing it, everyone across the board, including millionaires, would receive this benefit. Would the member not agree that MPs should not be eligible for that type of benefit?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not think there is a single tax cut that they would support on gasoline. This is a party that wants to see gas prices get higher. It would be better if the member opposite just told us that. The Liberals want to see the price of gas be over $2. That is part of the plan. Cutting the GST, which is a tax upon the tax, will give real relief at the pumps for constituents in his riding, who, I understand, need to drive a car really far to see him and tell him.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to speak directly to the issue of travel-related public health measures. I think it is fair to say that it is premature to lift every single federal public health measure related to travel, but I share the member's frustration that the government has refused to provide the basic information necessary to explain to Canadians why unvaccinated people still cannot fly within the country.

People simply want to see the evidence. They want an explanation. It is frustrating that those of us who support public health and support vaccination are unable to explain to people why this measure still exists when experts are calling it into question almost every week now.

Can my colleague talk about why she thinks the government is so reluctant to provide that information to the House and to Canadians?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I enjoy the work that my hon. colleague and I do on the transport committee, where we have heard expert after expert tell us that these mandates no longer make sense. We have asked the government, for months and months, to provide the specific scientific data. They have not, and they will not, and that is because it is vindictive and punitive to people who not agree with their world view.

We are still testing 4,000 people upon arrival in airports. We have lineups out the door. I have a flight on Friday out of Pearson, and I want to know from the government if I should go today and line up, because that is what is happening in our economic centre, in Toronto's Pearson airport. It is not just people who are waiting in line who are affected. It is people who are not allowed to fly. There are about five million Canadians that the government has othered and continues to other, because it is punitive.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech.

I think you often double down on previous motions that were already defeated in the House, such as eliminating consumer taxes, immediately ending health measures and abolishing the carbon tax.

Clearly these proposals do not really help people cope with the global issue of inflation that is affecting a number of essential products and services, nor do they do anything beyond addressing prices of individual products.

Inflation is here and it is real. What real solutions are you proposing to help those hard hit by inflation?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would like to remind the hon. member to direct her questions through the Chair in the future and not directly to other members.

The hon. member for Thornhill.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be brief. Just because we ask the government or tell the government that we think the carbon tax should be eliminated, or just because we want a GST cut, or just because we have proposed solutions a number of times, it does not mean they are wrong. They are absolutely right, and we are going to continue standing up for Canadians in the House every single day until it gets done.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to our Conservative motion and, most importantly, to advocate for the interests of my constituents and all Canadians.

This country is on the brink of disaster, yet the Prime Minister and his government continue to make decisions that are hurting Canadian families. The Prime Minister is quick to blame COVID‑19 and the war in Ukraine, but does he ever look in the mirror? Does he wonder how many of his decisions have made life harder for Canadians? Most of the problems we are dealing with today are problems that were made worse by the Prime Minister.

I want to start by talking about the carbon tax and about how it punishes hard-working Canadians.

The Prime Minister keeps blaming Mr. Putin and his war machine for the rising cost of gas. In reality, the taxes imposed by this government are the main cause behind the rising prices. The cost of gas in my riding is above $2.23 a litre today. That is unacceptable.

This Prime Minister has a trust fund and has probably never gone to a gas station. I am therefore not surprised that he does not understand the impact this can have on the wallets of ordinary Canadians. He and his ministers have drivers who pick them up and drop them off everywhere. He also has a private jet that can take him wherever he wants, whenever he wants, all at taxpayers' expense.

Beauce is in a rural part of Quebec. The men and women in my riding work very hard and do not have the luxury of being driven by professional drivers. They do not even have access to public transit because our towns are far apart from one another. These men and women have to get up every morning, pull on their boots and then work very hard to pay their bills, but the government continues to reach deeper and deeper into their pockets. People now have to choose between paying their mortgages to avoid losing their homes and skipping a meal, because they cannot afford to do both.

Our party tried to get similar motions adopted over the past few months, but the new love story between the NDP and the Liberals has put the brakes on every attempt we have made to make life more affordable for all Canadians. I have to say it is shameful.

Last week, in the House, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance and member for Outremont suggested that the Conservatives just wanted to give Canadians a tax break and that would not help them in the long run. Does the government not understand that Canadian families are having serious problems right now?

Families need a break from these inflated prices, and they need it now. My office continues to be inundated with calls from new parents, seniors and persons with disabilities who are unable to put food on the table because of this government's punitive taxes and its refusal to work with the opposition. Our party understands that inflation is currently a global phenomenon, but does the government not see that by adding self-inflicted policies, it has placed an added burden on the country?

Food inflation alone is at 9.7%. Economists agree that this number is the result of several factors, many of which could be addressed right here on our doorstep. There is no question that the carbon tax is having the greatest effect on pricing across the country. Companies are trying to offset their extra costs by passing them on to the consumer. Have Canadians not suffered enough during this pandemic? Then there is the fact that we are the only country in the world to impose the infamous 35% tariff on fertilizer from Russia.

Many questions have been asked here in the House and elsewhere about why the government is still imposing this tariff on our hard-working farm families. The only thing the minister has to say is that farmers can borrow more.

Let us think about this logically for a minute. These tariffs have a minimal impact on Russia. They have a much greater negative impact on hard-working Canadian farmers. We see the impact every time we walk into a grocery store. The price of food has gone up because of the carbon tax, and now the same thing is happening because of these draconian fertilizer tariffs. Farmers can borrow money to pay sky-high prices for fertilizer, but, once again, they have to pass that cost on to consumers sooner or later to hit the break-even point.

I would like to talk about our tourism sector and federal public employees. The government is refusing to say when it will change federal COVID‑19 requirements both at the border and in government offices. All we want is a plan. Canada's tourism sector is wasting away. This summer should have been the perfect time to visit the whole country and help our economy prosper. Instead, many other nations consider our country to be a joke. Pearson airport and many other international airports are in such disarray that nobody wants to visit our great country. Many people are deciding to take their money elsewhere. As a proud Canadian, I find that very upsetting.

Our federal public servants, who just want to get back to work, are not being allowed to do so because of vaccination and masking policies that are dividing Canadians. With the backlogs we are seeing at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada and the passport offices, would it not be a good idea to have all public servants back at work, in order to get our country back on track?

In closing, I can only hope that my speech today will encourage this government to reconsider its positions, because Canadians deserve better than what they are currently getting from their government. We are all here to serve our constituents, and it pains me to see the repercussions this is having in my riding.

We feel a bit powerless when a minority government can push whatever it wants through Parliament, without being held accountable. The NDP is largely responsible for this, so I hope that party will finally see the light and stop supporting this Liberal government on everything.

I urge all my colleagues to support this motion. We must help Canadians now, before it is too late. The Prime Minister will have to live with the legacy of this deliberate failure for the rest of his life.

I will be happy to respond to my colleagues' questions and comments.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his speech. Yesterday, he asked Ukrainian MP Yulia Klymenko if she supported the 35% tariff on fertilizer. She very clearly stated that we should do everything in our power to avoid supporting Russia.

For the past few weeks, the Conservatives have been saying we should support Ukraine, so why are they asking for rebates instead of calling for the tariff to be maintained to deter imports from Russia?

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Yes, I did ask the representative of the Ukrainian government that question yesterday. Perhaps I did not specify the consequences of the 35% surcharge on anything ordered and paid for before March 2.

Everyone agrees that we should support Ukraine. It is important to understand that the conflict began on March 2. Everything purchased after March 2 will have repercussions for Russia. In terms of fertilizer ordered in the fall of 2021, I think that we should be supporting our farmers instead, because they are the ones bearing the brunt of this right now.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague obviously has good intentions.

There might be a little problem with the approach, however. Would my colleague agree that a program should be created with the surplus to help workers whose livelihoods are at risk because of the rising cost of diesel and gas? I am talking about farmers, truckers, taxi drivers and everyone who is struggling to make ends meet right now. Does he think the surplus could go directly to the workers who need help?

If not, could he explain how he would ensure that removing the GST from diesel and gas would truly benefit consumers?

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member should take time to read through the motion we have moved. We are proposing to suspend the GST and the carbon tax to provide immediate relief.

There may be something worthwhile in what the member is proposing, but today we are debating a motion, not a budget. I want to make that clear.

Suspending the GST for the next few weeks is a concrete action we could put in place tomorrow morning. All Canadians would benefit from this, not just the farmers who need it. This would generate economic spinoffs across the country.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

The leader of the NDP has made some interesting proposals. Banks, insurance companies and oil companies are making record profits, while people are struggling to pay their bills.

Why not impose a temporary tax on excessive profits so that we can take that money and redistribute it to people through the Canada child benefit and by doubling the GST tax credit? That is far more practical and fair.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I am not saying that his suggestion is not worthwhile. However, if we want to quickly take real action, I think that what we are proposing in this motion would have a far greater and more immediate impact on the ground.

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

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts in regard to the Canada Infrastructure Bank. His colleague was very critical of Canada Infrastructure Bank, yet it has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in many areas in the country, and in particular in Brampton, for example, where it is actually responsible for ensuring that they get electric buses.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I myself have not seen much in the way of positive outcomes from Infrastructure Bank of Canada projects. On the contrary, I think there are good reasons to get rid of it.

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

Madam Speaker, let me start by saying I will share my time this afternoon with my hon. colleague from Kingston and the Islands.

I think questions about affordability are good questions. I think most MPs here understand the reality of this problem in Canada and around the world. I am delighted to have the opportunity to engage in a debate about policies that can help Canadians. I will talk about this problem in general terms while also addressing the specific points in the opposition motion.

First, I think it is important to recognize that there are several reasons for the inflation we are seeing in Canada and around the world, because inflation is a global problem. According to Statistics Canada, the country's inflation rate was 6.8% in April. I just want to point out that many other countries are in the same situation as us or even worse off. For example, in Germany, inflation is at 7.9%. In the eurozone in general, it is 8.1%. In the United States, it is 8.3%. In Spain, it is 8.7%. In the United Kingdom, it is 9%.

I absolutely understand that inflation is a problem in Canada. My point is not to minimize its impact on Canadians, since all Canadians and all parliamentarians understand that it is a problem for everyone in the world. What is causing this phenomenon? There is no single reason for the situation we are in right now. There are several causes.

The primary reason for inflation is of course the supply chain. That is a fact. During the pandemic, there were a lot of problems with the workforce and with the supply chain because of obstacles created by the health restrictions put in place to protect our collective health.

Another reason for inflation is the labour shortage. According to Statistics Canada, during the last quarter of 2021, there were roughly one million job vacancies. This is a reality in every western country because of the demographic situation resulting from the current or imminent retirement of baby boomers.

A third reason is the war in Ukraine, about which I asked my hon. colleague from Beauce a question just before my speech. The situation on the ground is terrible. The Russians are targeting infrastructure that is crucial for both the Ukrainians and the world. Yesterday we listened to testimony from Yulia Klymenko, a Ukrainian member of parliament, on how Russian soldiers are targeting bridges, factories and grain storage facilities. This is also part of the problem.

I objectively recognize that another partial reason for inflation is of course the money spent by governments around the world at the height of the pandemic, along with certain restrictions imposed for the sake of protecting our collective health.

I could go on at great length about the initiatives that this government has taken on since 2015 in relation to affordability. I am proud of that record. I am happy to quickly highlight some of them, but I do want to get to the text of the motion so that we can debate what is before us today.

The first thing this government did, I was not a part of. My honourable predecessor Scott Brison was in the House when the first thing the government did was lower income taxes for lower- and middle-income Canadians and raise them for higher-income Canadians.

On child care, we were the government that has and will continue to deliver national child care. This is something that has been talked about at great length. We have already seen a 25% reduction, on average, of fees in my home province of Nova Scotia. Those are concrete measures that we have taken forward.

I am a rural member of Parliament. We know the importance of supporting seniors. That is exactly why our government brought the old age security age for when someone will be eligible down from 67, to which the Conservatives proposed to raise it. We brought it back down to 65. We have also increased old age security by 10% for those who are 75 and older, and we have strengthened the guaranteed income supplement. The results have been telling. Nearly a million seniors were lifted out of poverty. That is under our watch, and they are affordability measures that matter.

We have heard a lot about the Canada child benefit. We reformed a program that had previously targeted higher-income earners. I have heard, on the doorsteps, the difference that makes in the lives of vulnerable families and single mothers, and I think it is something that should be celebrated.

I want to highlight a couple solutions I think would be important as a member of Parliament. I know the government is seized with the question, as many governments around the world are, on inflation.

I want to talk about the GST on gasoline and diesel. I asked the member for Thornhill about this. I do not mind the measure. I just do not think it is targeted enough. When I go to fill up at the pumps, I am noticing it. It is up over $100 right now. That is largely tied to the global market, but I am very privileged and fortunate. Every member of Parliament has a basic indemnity here that is higher than the average Canadian salary. I personally do not think that those types of measures, which could help support affordability, should be targeted to high-income Canadians.

I think we also have to be mindful of the fiscal framework. I love to see some of my Conservative colleagues talk about the government having to do something and that it has to be there to support vulnerable Canadians, but we cannot throw the fiscal framework out with the bath water. That is something I believe in and we have to be measured and responsible in terms of how we use public funds in the days ahead, not just give benefits to Canadians who really do not need them, objectively.

Looking at considering removing or expanding the programs that exist right now that reduce or eliminate GST on home heating fuels for low-income Canadians is also a really good idea. At the end of the day, as a rural member of Parliament, rural Canadians are more vulnerable to some of the costs around home heating. Many rural Canadians have not been able to make the same transition to the types of home heating systems where fossil fuel is not used. As an example, in Nova Scotia, nearly 50% of residents still use home heating oil. That is going to be a challenge as we head back to the winter of 2023, and I think something targeted in this domain would be beneficial.

Last would be the grocery code of conduct. This is something that is extremely beneficial to be looking at for food affordability.

I have already touched on (a) of the Conservative motion.

On carbon pricing, this is in place to try to help incentivize to reduce emissions. It is inherently a Conservative principle. I have chatted with some of my Conservative colleagues about why they do not like a market-based system that actually allows consumers to be able to make choices. I take notice that in certain provinces, because they have not stepped up with their own program, the federal backstop is sometimes clunky, but I do think this is something that needs to stay.

On fertilizer, I asked my hon. colleague from Beauce about this. I think the tariff should stay. The government should be looking at ways to indemnify farmers and certainly that tariff has to stay to dissuade the importation of Russian fertilizer.

On the mandates, I think, certainly, in a domestic sense, the government should continue to be looking at making adjustments for domestic travel.

I will finish on that and take questions.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member one very specific question. The Liberal government has been talking today about employment stats and 3.5 million jobs created. He is talking about a lack of people to employ in jobs that are available.

I am concerned that the government is overlooking a significant part of our population, and I would like to ask him if they are included in the statistics in regard to those who are unemployed. There are hundreds of thousands of Canadians who were fired by the government or whose ability to earn an income for their family was impacted by the government's COVID policies. As well, they are denied the EI that they have paid into.

I wonder if he is aware of the statistics in regard to how many Canadians do not have work and are not able to get a job.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members that whether someone is speaking in the House or virtually, if it is not time for them to raise their voice in the House, they should not be doing it.

The hon. member for Kings—Hants.

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

Madam Speaker, my understanding is that about 1% of federal civil servants have not been vaccinated. I think this policy was justified at the height of the pandemic. I think that as long as we continue to work ourselves out of the pandemic, from a legal perspective the government will have to look at adjusting the policies.

She mentioned hundreds of thousands of people who have not been vaccinated. There are not those same principles in all workplaces, so I reject the premise that individuals cannot find employment in the country on the basis of their vaccination status.

As it relates to federal jurisdiction, as I mentioned, the government will have to be mindful of whether there is a legal requirement to accommodate in the days ahead, particularly as we move forward and get beyond the height of the pandemic.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, clearly there are good things in the motion in question. We need to examine it more closely. There is a great deal of emphasis on the carbon tax, and therefore I am going to focus on something that the Bloc Québécois already criticized several weeks ago, namely the infamous 35% tax on everything purchased in fall 2021 or before March 2.

The people of Laurentides—Labelle called my riding office to tell me that it is unfair and unjust, and it has a direct effect on inflation, which arrived quickly and will not be resolved. Given that even the official opposition mentioned this several times, what action will be taken to restore fairness to this situation?

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

Madam Speaker, I will state a few facts before answering the question. The Conservatives' current position is that the 35% tariff on fertilizer imported from Russia should be eliminated.

In the case of farmers who purchased their fertilizer before the start of the war, that is the right thing to do, and I hope that the government will consider giving them a rebate.

However, they must change their supply chain and look for other markets. I believe that buying fertilizer that costs less is a fair solution. I am of the opinion that after the war, however, we will have to keep the tariff and find other solutions for affordable imports.

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

Madam Speaker, Canadians are going to the grocery store and to the gas pump, and they are seeing these eye-wateringly increased prices on the basic necessities. At the same time, the companies that sell those necessities are not simply passing along higher costs. They are also making dramatic profits.

I am wondering if my colleague across the way could tell the House why his government has refused to consider a windfall profits tax on companies that are making dramatic profits, similar to the tax that the U.K. has put in place on oil and gas companies that are gouging consumers.

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

Madam Speaker, our government, in the budget of 2022, has introduced a higher rate for banking interests. We are looking at the grocery code of conduct. At the end of the day, there are a number of initiatives that the government is trying to take to create a balanced playing field. It may not be exactly what the member opposite is calling for, but the government is looking at a variety of options to try to make sure that those who have the propensity to pay are paying a more equitable share to support the programs that we all consider really important.

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

Madam Speaker, I will start by saying, “Wow.” As if it were not enough that all of these items have already been dealt with in the House through various different opposition day motions over the last few months, the Conservatives have suddenly decided that it would be in their best interests to bring forward what the Conservative opposition leader referred to this morning as an omnibus motion. It is as though they do not actually think there is a chance that this would ever pass, yet they still bring it forward to the House in an attempt to do, I do not know what, because there are so many issues in here that anybody can literally get up and speak to. There is no ability to be concise and try to improve one policy or another. It is literally an airing of grievances, and it is so unfortunate to see the Conservative Party use its opposition day to do this.

Having said that, I have been listening to the debate for the last several hours, and at the heart of the debate is affordability, which is a really good discussion and debate to have, so I will focus my comments primarily on the affordability issues right now and what I see as the difference between the government's position and the opposition's position in terms of how to deal with that.

For starters it is very important to put on the record, and I know that several of my colleagues have done this today already, that the inflation problem we are seeing is not unique to Canada. As a matter of fact, Canada, among the developed countries, is toward the bottom in terms of the level of inflation. I am not suggesting for a second that it is acceptable in any way or that it is not creating a lot of hardships, because indeed it is, but it is important to address the problems in their totality.

This brings me to a comment that was made earlier today by the member for Simcoe North. In response to my question about affordability and about inflation being a global problem, his response was basically that just because other countries have an inflation problem, the reason they are experiencing those problems is that they had the same monetary and fiscal policies throughout the pandemic that Canada had, which I found very fascinating. The member is basically telling the House that he disagrees with the position that developed countries throughout the world took in fighting against the economic hardships that were endured during the pandemic. It is what he basically said. It makes me reflect on where Conservatives would have preferred to see not just this government and Canada go, but indeed developed countries throughout the world during the pandemic.

It is pretty clear through the member for Simcoe North's comments and what I have been hearing today, and for that matter over the last two years, that Conservatives would have preferred an approach that just left everybody to themselves to deal with their own individual hardships throughout the pandemic. Luckily, the Canadian government and governments throughout the developed world disagreed with the member and the Conservative Party when they decided it was in the better interests of Canadians and the western world to make sure that we invested in people to get through this pandemic.

Did that lead to some issues with respect to supply chains and inflation? I think everyone can agree that to some degree those policies played a role. Now is the time for government, and we are seeing this throughout the western world, in developed countries and in Canada as well, to start developing and implementing new monetary policy to help deal with some of that inflation.

I also found it very interesting when the member for Thornhill stood and somehow tried to suggest that when it comes to affordability, young Canadians are, in her words, fleeing Canada for “the British dream” and “the American dream”.

Is the member for Thornhill not aware that the inflation rates in the U.S. and Britain are actually much higher? In fact, compared to Canada, which is at 6.8%, the inflation rate in the United States is at 8.3%, and in Britain it is 9%. This hyped-up rhetoric by the Conservatives to somehow try to suggest that this is a problem just within Canada and that only people living in Canada are experiencing it just is not the reality of the situation. That is quite obvious in the comments that have been made by the member for Thornhill and indeed other Conservatives.

I also just cannot wrap my head around the fact that a member of Parliament would come in here and suggest it is the government's plan to make prices higher, that it is intentionally trying to make it more difficult for Canadians in terms of affordability. The member for Thornhill was asked a great question by the member for Kings—Hants and of course completely sidestepped it and did not address the question.

The question she was asked by the member for Kings—Hants was why she thinks the GST should be eliminated for everybody. Would it not make more sense to ensure that any kind of reduction in taxes or rebates, however one would model it, was targeted at those who needed it the most?

Indeed, the member for Kings—Hants was absolutely correct. I do not think any member of Parliament, knowing what our salaries are, really needs to have the GST eliminated from their purchases. I think the member for Thornhill would agree with that. Why she was unable to provide an answer to that question really hits at the heart of what the Conservative agenda is here. The agenda is to provide tax breaks for the wealthy. This is what Conservatives have always done.

I hear the member for Regina—Lewvan laughing right now. I would encourage him to get up when it is question time and explain to the House and to me why it is that he, the member for Thornhill and Conservatives generally speaking are so much in favour of the idea of ensuring that he and I get GST tax cuts. That is exactly what they are asking for in this, so I would like the member from Regina, when the time comes, to explain to me why he thinks he and I should get a tax cut. I do not think we should. I do not think we need the GST eliminated from our purchases right now.

I can definitely see the need for a good policy discussion on the many Canadians out there who are struggling, the ones who Conservatives get up on a daily basis and talk about. They refer to them by name quite often in the House and talk about how they are struggling with the increased prices at grocery stores. Those are the people who would benefit from the policy objectives the Conservatives are suggesting through the GST cut. It is not the member for Regina—Lewvan, the member for Thornhill, the member for Simcoe North or myself, yet they continue to promote that idea.

I can respect the NDP's desire and passion to push forward the agenda when it comes to taxing businesses more that have made excess and huge profits during the pandemic. I respect that and agree with it, but I do not understand why they will not just accept the answer.

The member for Scarborough—Guildwood stood up and answered the question from an NDP member directly, who then just stood up and asked it to another Liberal. We are already doing that. We have already increased the excess profits tax on companies that have made a windfall during the last two years. I know it is not enough, because the NDP's job is always to ask for more. It would not matter what was given; its members would want more. I get it. It is part of their job and I respect it, and I am sure they will continue to do that.

I obviously will not be voting in favour of this. There is absolutely no way any Conservative is expecting any member in this House other than themselves to vote in favour of it. This brings me back to the beginning of my speech, which is to ask why they are bringing forward this motion they know will actually help nobody.