Debates of June 7th, 2022

Opposition Motion—Measures for Immediate Financial Relief

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, thank you for recognizing that I have the floor.

I would like to ask my colleague, with whom I had the pleasure of serving on the Standing Committee on International Trade during the last Parliament—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Once again, it is really disrespectful what is happening in the House right now, and I would ask the parliamentary secretary not to partake in discussions going back and forth with the official opposition when somebody else has the floor.

I know most members who are participating in this right now have been in the House for some time. They should know what the rules of the House are.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to hear myself talk without anyone talking over me when I am trying to ask a question.

In 2021, we floated the idea of a type of minimum tax for G7 countries to prevent competition among the tax systems and to prevent multinationals from taking advantage of that competition to engage in blackmail, for example, by threatening one country that they would move to a neighbouring country if the former did not lower its tax rate. That is a good idea that seems to break with the neo-liberalism that has prevailed for several decades.

What does my colleague think about that?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, which was asked in the appropriate way.

I think we have been in a race to the bottom for far too long. An agreement that would guarantee a fair minimum tax rate is a very good idea. I think it would be a good thing for companies that want to stay in Canada but are in competition with companies whose operations are located in countries with lower tax rates.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this Conservative opposition day motion because I think it identifies a very real problem facing Canadians: inflation generally, and the price of gas, the price of food and the price of housing.

Unfortunately, it does something the Conservatives are wont to do recently, which is ignore the ongoing pandemic. It asks us to ignore health experts in favour of so-called freedom from mandates. I would just remind members of the House that in my home province of British Columbia, in the last week of May, 44 people died from COVID. We have many people, some of whom I know quite well, who are suffering from long COVID, and many members, or certainly many citizens of British Columbia, are receiving things like cancer treatments that compromise their immune systems, so there are lots of reasons why we should continue to listen to the health experts and not simply adopt some political position on mandates.

I would agree with the Conservatives on only one small aspect, which is that I think the government has an obligation to show its work, as we say, when it comes to mandates. I believe that public health officials will do what is right, but the government needs to show us the evidence it is using for the decisions it is making, which it was pretty good at during the early stages of the pandemic, but seems to have forgotten about now.

Having identified the affordability crisis, of course the Conservatives like to say the solution is more money in Canadians' pockets. Strangely, there is some agreement here. I believe there are some Canadians who need more money in their pockets. The problem is this: Which Canadians need that money in their pockets? The Conservative solution is to make sure that the pockets that get filled are those of large corporations and not the people who are actually facing an affordability crisis in their families.

When it comes to gas prices, let us look at the profits of oil companies. In the first quarter of 2022 only, Imperial Oil recorded $1.17 billion in profits. This was its best record in 30 years. Suncor recorded a profit, in the first quarter only, of $2.95 billion, which is four times its profits last year. What is going on here is profiteering. These are companies that are taking advantage of the international situation, of the climate crisis and of all kinds of things to line their own pockets. The Conservative solution here, first of all, is a bit ironic, because it is to increase the deficit by decreasing our tax revenues. It is also to trust that the oil companies would not just fill that space with their own price increases and scoop up all the benefits of any tax reductions. There is no mechanism to prevent that, and we have seen the record, over and over again, of the oil companies: they will take any advantage to increase their profits. The Conservative solution risks lining the pockets of big oil and providing nothing for families who are struggling with high gas prices on a daily basis.

The New Democrats have instead called for an excess profits tax not just on oil companies, but also on big banks and large food retailers. Scotiabank recorded profits of over $10 billion last year, the Bank of Montreal had over $8 billion, Loblaws had a net profit of $1.2 billion, and Sobeys, a smaller player, had over $600 million in profits. The Conservative proposal would increase the deficit and inflationary pressures, and there would be nothing about these record profits being racked up by the big corporations. It would take away necessary revenues for providing some help to those who really are hit by the affordability crisis. We know who is hardest hit: It is the seniors living on a fixed income, people with disabilities, indigenous people and northerners.

We must never forget that these impacts are strongly gendered, I will say, in that when we look at women over 65, a vast majority of them are living in poverty, especially single women over the age of 65. When we look at single-parent families who are living in poverty, the vast majority are headed by women, so when we are talking about these impacts of affordability, we have to remember that they hit particularly hard at Canadian women, no matter their age or their family status.

I want to thank the member for Nunavut, who continually raises the food insecurity problem in the north, for bringing our attention to it again today. The biggest impact of these rising costs for Canadian families is food insecurity.

I want to draw the House's attention to the report released yesterday by Food Banks Canada. Canada, one of the richest countries in the world and one of the major food-producing countries in the world, now reports that 23% of Canadians, over seven million Canadians, reported going hungry in the past year because they could not afford to buy food. One-third of Canadians earning less than $50,000 a year reported having to skip meals because they did not have enough money, and 43% of indigenous people, to the enormous shame of this country, reported food insecurity that caused them to go hungry for more than one day.

What is the solution? Food banks do their best to fill that gap in our income system and in our food system, but we cannot keep asking charitable, hard-working volunteers to solve the food insecurity crisis. We need to step up and solve that crisis by putting more money in the pockets of those who face food insecurity, immediately and in the long term.

Conservatives point to that problem of food insecurity in their preamble, but then when we look down into the solutions in today's motion, there are none. There is nothing to actually help people who face food insecurity, unlike New Democrats' proposed measures to put money in the hands of those most vulnerable to food insecurity right now and in the long term. We have always called for an increase to OAS and GIS benefits for seniors. Seniors cannot do anything about rising food prices, because most of them already spend all of their fixed income. Their only choice is to eat less and put their health at risk. Again, we would like to see an increase to OAS and GIS.

We have called for an immediate hike to the Canada child benefit. Even a modest hike as we are calling for, of $500 a year, would provide an increase on a monthly basis to families with kids trying to meet food costs. We know there are lots of parents who go hungry and will not report it so they can feed their kids. They skip meals. They do not eat the nutritious meals they need as adults, so they can provide that food to their kids. An increase right away to the Canada child benefit would help meet that crisis, and would continue in the long run to help people with food security.

A doubling of the GST tax credit for low-income Canadians would go a long way in the short and long term to helping to meet that crisis of food insecurity.

It is interesting that the data that was released yesterday by Food Banks Canada also shows that 60% of those who use food banks report that housing costs are the main reason they are at the food bank. They cannot afford to buy healthy, nutritious food for their families because they are already paying way too much of their limited income to meet their housing needs.

This time, the Conservative motion acknowledges the affordability crisis in housing, but it proposes a national inquiry in money laundering as if this would have some impact on the provision of affordable housing units. I believe that we need to crack down on money laundering, absolutely. I do not think we need an inquiry to know what we need to do. Nevertheless, I cannot find the connection between the Conservatives saying there is a crisis in affordability and that we should have an inquiry into money laundering. It just does not make any sense to me.

New Democrats, instead, favour measures to curb the use of housing for speculative investments. We need to crack down on corporate landlords who are gobbling up affordable housing in many cities across Canada, and then renovicting the people who have lived in that affordable housing and forcing them out onto the street or into their families' overcrowded housing units.

We also need to crack down on real estate investment trusts. Real estate investment trusts get privileged tax treatment. They get tax breaks for buying up affordable housing. I just cannot imagine why we think that is good public policy in this country. I would love to see us eliminate the special tax treatment for real estate investment trusts. Obviously, we would have to phase in something like that, because people have done a lot of their financial planning based on it, but still it is something in the short and long term that we could do to address using the housing market for speculation and profit.

Instead, we should be doing something that I have always called for as a New Democrat and that we have always worked for. That is to get the government back into the business of building non-profit housing in very large numbers. The market will never provide the housing that we need at the low end. It will continue to build high-end housing until the cows come home, as they used to say where I was raised, but it will never provide those affordable housing units.

Non-profit housing could provide the housing security that is necessary for families. They do not necessarily have to own a single family house to feel secure in their housing. They could get a unit in a non-profit housing co-operative, for instance, and raise their kids in that security. It also creates a sense of community: of people who live together and have a common interest in taking care of their housing needs.

New Democrats are not the only ones who make the obvious link between the high cost of housing and homelessness, but it is something I do not hear the Conservatives talking about. It is something I rarely hear the Liberals or the Conservatives talking about. When I look in my community, I see the unfortunate complaints that are coming up about people feeling unsafe in the streets because of homeless people.

What is the solution? First of all, I do not think homeless people are the problem, in terms of safety locally. The solution is housing in the short term, so that those people are not forced onto the streets.

Of course, the member for Winnipeg Centre has been very vocal, this week and always, in calling for the government to immediately fund a low-barrier, safe shelter place for indigenous women in Winnipeg Centre, and it is a good example—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry, but the hon. member's time is up. I have been trying to give him some signals to let him know that it was coming to an end. The hon. member will have an opportunity to say more during questions and comments.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

I do not know where to start here. As I understand his speech, the member said reducing the sales tax is repugnant and should not be supported because it contributes to the overall deficit. Is it not the whole point that we are trying to put money back into people's pockets based on their consumption? I do not understand that.

The member has spoken at length about the government's response when it comes to a failure to tax this and failure to tax that, yet for every single vote of matter, whether it is for shutting down debate in the House or curtailing debate, his party stands up and supports the government.

Given his issues with the government and all that it has stood for, which he pointed out today, will he be supporting the government tonight? I ask because it sounds like he should have no confidence in the government.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the question because it gives me time to talk about the confidence and supply agreement we reached with the government.

Some of the goals in the confidence and supply agreement are things like providing dental care, which will help poor families take care of their kids and help seniors take care of their teeth. What is most important to me in that agreement is the early launch of a for indigenous, by indigenous housing strategy, which will get secure housing built for first nations across this country.

There are many reasons in that confidence and supply agreement to support the government, but there are no reasons that I would support a cut to the GST or HST that would only benefit the wealthy and the big corporations.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on one of the points the member raised, because I have been a long-term advocate for it. In fact, back in the late 1980s, we advocated for Weston, a community in Winnipeg's northwest end, to develop the Weston housing co-op.

It has been a long time since we have seen the development of co-ops, but for the first time, we are seeing how the Government of Canada can ensure that we see co-ops grow across this country. There is a great value to that. I always say that in a housing co-op, one is not a tenant but a resident, and that is a huge difference.

I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts and perspective on housing co-ops giving many people the opportunity to have a sense of ownership in an affordable fashion.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Winnipeg North for his question on co-operatives. I am a big fan of co-operatives, and there are lots in my riding.

One thing I would like to see Canada Mortgage and Housing do right now is invest in the redevelopment and rebuilding of co-ops. Many of the co-ops in my riding are quite old, are quite low density and have only relatively large family-style units. People who want to stay in those co-operatives need that redevelopment. If we build some new one-bedroom units, they can stay in their communities. People have learned that co-ops provide housing security in the long term.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, what worries me about this Conservative motion is the tax that could benefit oil companies. If we truly want to be free from the rising cost of oil, then we need to be less dependent on oil overall. My colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot illustrated this quite well. Right now, we need to be talking about investing in a green energy transition and divesting ourselves of oil.

How does my colleague explain his support for a government that, unfortunately, continues to invest in Bay du Nord and in the oil industry?

Also, we have not truly embarked on a transition. How does my colleague feel about the Liberals' failure to take action on the energy transition, which is an important step in distancing ourselves from this industry?

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

Madam Speaker, my answer is quite clear. Outside of the confidence and supply agreement, we have complete freedom as New Democrats to oppose the government on things like its failure to respond adequately to the climate crisis.

I would point out that the motion in front of us today really exacerbates the climate crisis by providing a way for big companies to get more profits that they can reinvest in oil in the long term, instead of addressing things like food insecurity and homelessness in this country.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of the opposition motion before this chamber. While obviously I cannot speak for other members of this place, I can state that the affordability crisis in many parts of my riding is critical. I am reasonably certain that other members of this place also hear similar concerns from some of their citizens.

The recent rise in interest rates is taking as much as $700 or more out of people's household budgets. Gas and diesel prices are also taking a huge toll. I recognize that there are members who represent ridings where gas and diesel prices probably do not matter as much, perhaps those with a large urban city and good public transit.

I know that often in this place we debate how the carbon tax only drives up the price of gas and diesel, causing hardship on many Canadian families. I also know that in response, the Prime Minister will often say that this is not true because of carbon tax rebates. Here is the thing. Someone who lives in a large urban city and seldom uses a car, even if they own one, probably does come out ahead with the carbon tax rebates. However, we seem to have hit a situation here in Canada where, under the Liberal government, vast amounts of policy are geared toward those who live in urban centres.

We must be mindful that we collectively represent the national interests of all Canadians, and many Canadians, particularly in parts of my riding, absolutely depend on owning a vehicle that must be driven daily. In parts of my riding, there is still no high-speed Internet, despite seven years of Liberal promises to the contrary. In fact, there are even a few areas where people cannot get a wireless signal. Many secondary roads may only see a snowplow once a day in harder winter conditions, if that. People not only need a car, but need one with all-wheel drive and significant ground clearance to navigate these roads in the winter.

I should also add that in many of these small rural communities, public transport is not available. Even Greyhound is now gone. For most, there might be one grocery store or possibly two. Prices were always a struggle in these communities due to a lack of competition and high transport costs, but right now, with record high inflation, things have never been worse.

Many families are really struggling right now.

I heard about a senior on a fixed income who volunteers at a local thrift shop. She has been volunteering there for many years and understands how important these thrift shops are to low-income families. She can no longer afford the gas to get to her volunteer job at the shop.

I have heard about young families that had to cancel their summer vacations because of the high price of gas. Many local small business owners have spoken about having to pass on the much higher shipping costs, which makes them less competitive with online retailers.

I have heard from contractors who bid on jobs that they have to commute to complete them. Now the higher costs have eaten away at their profit margins. Everywhere I look, I am hearing from citizens who are being hit hard by the lack of affordability. High inflation and higher interest rates are causing the perfect storm.

Again, I feel the need to point this out: This is not the case everywhere in Canada. Wealthy citizens are largely not impacted by this. Likewise, for those people in larger cities where they are less car dependent, I am certain they are less severely impacted. However, we must recognize that we are here for all Canadians.

While I am on my feet, I would like to mention that I am splitting my time with the hon. member for Brandon—Souris, who will be giving an excellent speech that I am sure this chamber will approve.

We must recognize that we are supposed to be here for all Canadians. That includes people who live in smaller communities, such as Princeton, Merritt, Keremeos, Cawston, Olalla and Logan Lake. Of course, there are also unincorporated rural areas where these problems are even more challenging.

This opposition day motion cannot cure all of the challenges facing Canadians who live in these areas, but these measures could and would provide some assistance. They send a message of hope that people who are elected and sent to Ottawa are listening and that we are trying to do what we can to make life a bit easier for Canadians who are not wealthy and who live in rural areas.

Let us make no mistake that these challenges disproportionately impact those who live in rural areas of Canada. These are good people who send a significant amount of their paycheque here to Ottawa. They watch a federal Liberal government that does not think twice about giving $12 million to a multi-billion dollar grocery corporation so it can buy new refrigerators. I mention this point because imagine what it feels like for people struggling financially in a small community like Hedley, where there is no high school and they must drive their kids to school, to hear some members of Parliament say these proposed savings do not add up to much. To them, every dollar counts.

Let us keep in mind that many citizens who live in rural areas often do so because those are the only areas where they can find affordable housing for their families. They hear the Prime Minister say that gas prices are exactly what he wants, but in a place like Hedley, where people must commute to either Princeton or Keremeos and where a car or truck is the lifeline for services, school, groceries, supplies and a job, what do they do? Sometimes in this place I think the Prime Minister has forgotten places like Hedley and that those who live there absolutely need and depend on owning and driving a car. They should not be demonized for that fact.

The proposed measures in the motion would help them and would send a valuable and important message: that in a time of need, this Parliament tried to help, or at least those who will vote in support of the motion can take some comfort in knowing they tried to do something. Those who oppose it can, I suppose, ask themselves differently.

The bottom line is that I believe these proposed measures are a small but important step to help make life more affordable. Other G7 leaders are taking these actions to help make life more affordable for the citizens they serve. I am calling on all hon. members of this place to take action, vote in support of the motion and send a message that we are trying to make life more affordable for our citizens, who are struggling right now. The Prime Minister once said better is always possible, but after seven years under the Prime Minister, the reality for many Canadians is that more expensive is always possible, because their costs are going up and up and nothing is getting more affordable, despite the promises of the Prime Minister to the contrary.

We have a critically urgent situation in many parts of Canada, and it is indeed now the time to take action by voting in support of the motion, in support of giving Canadians a break at the pumps and in support of our farmers, so they can keep their input costs down, particularly for fertilizer, and can plant food and feed the world. The Russians have been bombing key strategic areas in Ukraine to block wheat transports. This is a crisis of affordability not just for Canadians, but for people around the world. Canadian farmers can be part of the solution, but they cannot do this if they cannot get some certainty and cannot plant accordingly.

We can also start to address long-term issues. Despite what other members of this place say, money laundering has been a major focus of the Cullen commission in my province of British Columbia. The Cullen commission has now reported to government, and the first thing that happened with money laundering in casinos is the government tightened things up. Guess what happened then. Suspicious transaction reports in Ontario immediately doubled. When one jurisdiction within Canada starts to tighten its rules, we will see that pushed to other areas.

The Government of Canada owes it to every Canadian to make sure it is doing everything it can, particularly when so many millennials feel the system is rigged. They feel they cannot get a mortgage because they have been excluded by the Liberal stress test. They feel that other speculative forces, such as money laundering, are entering the market and making things difficult. They will feel alienated if we do not allow them to get a home.

There are some common-sense measures in the motion, and I hope that all hon. members will look at them. We may not be able to make life easy in a time of struggle, but we can always make it easier. We can let Canadians know that Parliament, the House of Commons, is on their side.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a very specific question for the member, for clarification purposes. Clause (c) says that the Conservative Party is now proposing to eliminate tariffs on fertilizer. In other words, one could actually purchase fertilizer from Russia and not have to pay a tariff.

Is that really what the Conservatives are saying in this motion?

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

Madam Speaker, I am glad the member brought that up. No other G7 country is putting these tariffs on.

Let us remember who pays the tariffs. The tariffs are actually eaten up by the farmers who have to pay to get them. The money is not going to Russia; the money is going to the government. If we want to be able to feed the world, particularly given the focus by the Russian military on destroying the strategic access to market of Ukraine's grain, such as wheat, it has to come from somewhere, and it is not coming from the current government so far. The government is not willing to give the tools farmers need to be able to put food on people's plates. That is bad for Canada, bad for farmers and bad for the world.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I have a great deal of respect for him.

I am disappointed because today the Conservative Party has an omnibus motion for us after they slammed Bill C‑19 for being an appalling mammoth of a bill, and that was echoed by the Bloc Québécois. Now they present us with this motion in a sort of giant lump. There is so much in there that I am surprised it does not say “build more pipelines” somewhere. It is mind-boggling.

There are a bunch of issues we agree on, such as fertilizer and the real estate market. It really upsets me that we cannot vote on those issues because they are all lumped together with many other things, such as scrapping the carbon tax, for example.

Here is my question for the member: Does he really expect to get support for this motion, or is this just a ploy to make all the other parties look like the bad guys?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would like to remind the hon. member to address his questions through the Chair and not directly to the member.

The hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

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

Madam Speaker, I am disappointed that the Bloc is not seeing the bigger picture here.

British Columbia has its own provincial carbon tax. That is something this motion would not affect whatsoever, but what it would affect is the GST. The goods and services tax is actually a tax on all provincial tax excise and the provincial-federal gas tax excise, as well as any carbon taxes. When we pay at the pump, that GST gets added to the total of it. This is one way in which that particular portion, that 5% on every dollar, would stay in the pockets of Canadians and it would not go to anyone else. This is a way we could actually start to help people, both on commuting and also on groceries, because groceries are heavily dependent on gas prices.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, the New Democrats continue to put forward proposals to double the GST rebate and to increase the child tax credit by $500, yet the Conservatives do not support that. In fact, they continue to stand up for big oil. The member talked about the system being rigged; it is rigged, because Liberals are afraid to tax oil and gas. Who needs oil lobbyists, when we have the Conservative Party?

This motion is quick to cut taxes and other sources of revenue for government, but it offers nothing to protect consumers. In fact, all it would do is increase profits for oil and gas.

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

Madam Speaker, that member should come to see some truths here.

First of all, when the Harper government lowered the GST from 7% to 5%, it maintained the 7% rebates for those on low income, which helped out seniors. Conservatives have always tried to help people with the lowest means. At the other side of this, New Democrats keep saying this will help oil companies, but the GST is applied on the transaction after everything else has been taken into account. This motion would mean money in people's pockets, which they can spend on things like food. Doug Porter from the Bank of Montreal has said that we should stop trying to entrench inflation, and gas prices are a way to do that at grocery stores. This motion would help.

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

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege today to speak to our opposition day motion.

The number one issue facing my constituents right now is the fact that they cannot pay their bills, put fuel in their tank and put groceries on their table. Inflation is costing everyone an extra $2,000 this year alone. Seniors, students and working families are getting crushed by the dramatic rise in the cost of almost everything they purchase. Food is up almost 9.7% in the last year alone. Gas is at record highs and there seems to be no end in sight. Housing is now out of reach for millions of Canadians, who will never be able to have a home of their own, which, as a grandparent, greatly concerns me.

The government should be seized by this issue, but all it has are empty talking points. It still does not have a plan to address inflation and fix the supply chain issues. In fact, in a recent consumer debt index survey from MNP, 53% of Canadians surveyed said they are $200 a month away from being unable to pay their bills at the end of every month and meet their debt obligations. That is proof in itself that families are struggling to get by.

I want to focus my speech on the dramatic rise in the price of energy. Driving to work or heating or cooling one's home is not a luxury. It is a necessity in Canada. For those thinking the government cannot do anything to ease the price at the pump, let me just remind them, as we have heard from some of our opposition colleagues, that a significant portion of every litre of gas they pay for is heavily taxed.

If a constituent in Brandon, Manitoba went to the gas station and filled up an F-150, which is probably one of the most widely owned trucks in Canada, it would cost an astonishing $266.56. Out of that $266 to fill up the tank, the GST and the carbon tax combined would amount to $28.26. In my constituency, it is not unusual for residents to have to fill up their tank at least three times a month, as they have to drive long distances to go to work, drop the kids off at school, get groceries or go to the hospital.

If we pass this Conservative motion, we would provide immediate relief from the record-high energy prices by suspending the GST and the carbon tax. That would result in tax savings of close to $85 a month. For some, that may not seem like a lot, but I can assure my colleagues that for a working family, that is a lot of money.

Constituents of Brandon—Souris are disproportionately affected by the carbon tax. The Liberal government needs to start realizing that its policies affect rural and urban Canadians quite differently. My riding covers a span of well over 17,000 square kilometres. That figure may be hard to picture for the Minister of Finance, who lives in downtown Toronto, the ninth-smallest riding in Canada, but that is roughly the same size as three Prince Edward Islands put together.

I am a proud Manitoban. I am also proud to be from rural Canada. Unfortunately, I do not believe the government has any regard for the livelihoods and concerns of those who are from that portion of our great nation. Many members of the Liberal government probably do not understand what life in rural Manitoba is like. Let me paint a picture of it for them.

In my entire riding, there are only nine police stations and one Walmart. For many, the nearest full-scale hospital is a drive of up to two hours away. There is little to no public transportation in my riding, and many have to drive upwards of 30 minutes just to go to the nearest grocery store. I and the rest of the Conservative caucus believe in public transit but, let us face it, across rural Canada it is non-existent. Families need to take their kids to school and to hockey practice and to drive long distances to get to their jobs. With the price of gas hovering around $2 per litre, that is making life very difficult. I fear things are only going to get worse, as the Liberals are planning to hike the carbon tax even further: in fact, to actually quadruple it.

If the Liberals are concerned about those who live in rural Canada and all those who are struggling to pay their bills, they should vote in favour of our motion and suspend, not get rid of but suspend, the GST and the carbon tax on fuel.

The other part of our Conservative motion I want to touch on is taking the GST and the carbon tax off people's residential energy bills.

According to Manitoba Hydro, the carbon tax is equal to 9.79¢ applied to each cubic metre of natural gas that a household uses. The typical household in Manitoba will use around 2,250 cubic metres of natural gas in a year, resulting in $220 in carbon taxes. If we remove the GST from the average person's energy bills, it would result in even more savings.

We need to look no further than the Liberals' budget implementation act to see how their carbon tax is impacting people's pocketbooks. Part 1 of the budget implementation act aims to enact certain tax measures by “changing the delivery of Climate Action Incentive payments from a refundable credit claimed annually to a credit that is paid quarterly”. There is only one reason the government would have a need to change these rebates from annual to quarterly, and that is because the carbon tax is taking so much money out of people's pockets.

We also know from the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report released on March 24, 2022, that “[m]ost households...will see a net loss resulting from federal carbon pricing”. The report revealed that the average Manitoban will be giving $1,145 to the federal government due to the carbon tax. However, they will be receiving only $832 from the incentive payments, and $1,145 is a lot of money for those who are struggling to pay their bills.

The PBO report proves what we have been saying all along: The carbon tax is not cost-neutral and it is costing people a lot of money. To make matters worse, the Minister of Environment has been claiming that eight out of 10 Canadians get more money back from the carbon tax, but the PBO declares that not to be the case.

Let us just end the charade and suspend the carbon tax. It is one of the easiest things the government could do to immediately help families and seniors who are getting squeezed by record inflation. Instead of taxing hard-working people, a responsible government would come up with a plan that not only protects the environment, but also protects people's bank accounts.

The Liberals can make the climate action incentive payments as frequent as they want, but that is not going to change the fact that more Canadians are going to be worse off than not. Making the climate action incentive payments quarterly does not relieve financial stress for those who cannot afford to put gas in their tank this weekend. The fact that the government is ignoring the calls for help should be much more concerning to them. I know it certainly is for me.

I recently put out a survey on the price of fuel, and I am starting to receive responses. I heard from my constituent Chelsea, who said, “The middle class...and those who drive to work every day are the ones who are suffering most”. Maybe the finance minister needs to hear from Keith and Marlene, who are seniors living on a fixed income. They are worried about not being able to stay in their home. They said, “We are seniors and the only pensions we have are OAS and CPP. Our world is crazy with high prices. We own our home [but] for how long?”

Folks across the country are in difficult situations. With the price of fuel and, quite frankly, most other essential items being so high, it is no wonder that young adults are having such a hard time saving up for big purchases, such as a new car or a home.

I also want to stress how the Liberal government is continuing to leave farmers behind and putting them at a competitive disadvantage. Just a couple of weeks ago, almost every single Liberal MP voted against our Conservative bill to finally exempt farmers from the carbon tax.

In closing, I implore my Liberal colleagues to vote in favour of our Conservative motion, suspend the GST and the carbon tax, and give people some much-needed relief. It is time for action and it is time to help those struggling to make ends meet. People are tired of hearing nothing but platitudes. This proposal would guarantee immediate financial relief and put money back into people's pockets.

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

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that a number of years ago, the Conservatives were criticizing the government, saying that because of the Government of Canada, the price of oil was too low, when gas was being sold for 88¢ a litre, and now they are criticizing the government because the price of gas is too high, at over $2 a litre. Obviously, the Government of Canada is concerned, but to try to give a false impression that the war that is taking place in Europe today is not influencing the price of oil and gas is dangerously close to misleading.

Does the member believe that the world price of oil has anything to do with what people are paying at the pump?

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

Madam Speaker, of course it does, but the government added to inflation long before there was ever a war in Ukraine. When $5 billion a week is printed for a year and a half, it is bound to put a lot of money into circulation in a country like Canada. When COVID hit, we had to help people out off the hop, but the government helped itself out by continuing to spend money that even the Parliamentary Budget Officer cannot keep track of, and he admits that only two-thirds of it was being used for COVID.

The member for Winnipeg North says that there is not enough input from the petroleum industry in Canada, if I can put it that way. It pays $20 billion a year in taxes. How much more does he think it should pay?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for his intervention. Rather than eliminating the taxes on gas, does he not think that we should charge a special tax on the profits of oil companies, which have reached a record high this year?

We could also introduce a special tax on businesses that made more than $1 billion in profit last year in order to help those most affected. We could stop decreasing the guaranteed income supplement for seniors and increase old age security.

We could find solutions other than eliminating a tax, whose only impact will be to make oil companies die of laughter in a few months, when they will have quietly increased their prices to recover those amounts and once again line their pockets, even though they are already handsomely benefiting from the current situation.