SoVote

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP)

Mar/22/22 3:53:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I very much agree with my hon. colleague that Canadians are experiencing a dramatic hardship due to the high cost of living, whether it is for food, housing, services or, as this motion speaks to, gas at the pumps. As the member said, we are facing record-high gas prices. The problem I see with this motion is that it would do nothing about the excessive profits being made by oil and gas companies. We know that companies such as Suncor just made net profits of $4.1 billion. Someone is profiting enormously from prices of gas at $2 per gallon. Instead of doing this, would the member agree that we should impose a tax of 3% on profits over $1 billion, as the NDP has suggested, and redirect that revenue to everyday Canadians?

136 words

Ms. Melissa Lantsman

Mar/22/22 3:54:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from the member, who actually still sounds as if he comes from the NDP. We have an opportunity right now to do something for Canadians. We have an opportunity to lower the costs. I think the conversation about record profits in oil companies is a frivolous one in the context of this debate. The member used to be part of a party that fought for the affordability of Canadians. Where is that member now?

80 words

Mr. Earl Dreeshen (Red Deer—Mountain View, CPC)

Mar/22/22 3:54:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, certainly with gas prices at an all-time high across Canada, Canadians are in desperate need of a break. They are facing severe hardships due to the dramatic escalation of gas prices while the federal government enjoys increased revenue collected off the 5% GST, as well as the HST and QST. Today, I join my colleagues in demanding that the House call on the government to immediately provide relief at the pumps to all Canadians. By introducing a temporary 5% reduction on gasoline and diesel we would, at present, reduce the average price by approximately eight cents per litre. Canadians' finances are buckling under the strain of record-breaking gas prices that have no clear end in sight. There is a looming thought that by increasing the cost of energy, the Liberal agenda to push Canadians to invest in more environmentally friendly methods of transportation will materialize. This short-sighted narrative, which tries to reduce global emissions standards by punishing consumers, is without merit. As has been proven time and time again, provinces can and will address greenhouse gas emissions while respecting the environment and their citizens. Also, there is a continued misunderstanding that increased oil prices can be dealt with by people taking public transportation, driving less or buying electric vehicles. These are serious misconceptions as they continue to ignore the plight of Canadians who do not have the luxury of transportation infrastructure in their communities or cannot afford the expense associated with the questionable purchase of an electric vehicle. At this point in time, we are hardly in a place where we should be experimenting with people's lives, which is exactly what ignoring rising fuel costs would be doing. Skyrocketing inflation and the cost of living crisis are devastating families across Canada, and casually suggesting that they turn to public transportation or electric vehicles is reckless. If we factor in the suspect full-life cost cycles of EVs, this is even worse. There are so many Canadians who rely on their vehicles to get to work and drive their kids to school and to sports. There are small businesses and non-profits that depend on their vehicles to keep serving their communities. Giving Canadians a GST break on fuel is a simple, common-sense solution to help those Canadians who are suffering the most from inflation. Higher fuel prices raise the cost of everything from gasoline to home heating, groceries, education and health care. A staggering 53% of Canadians say that they cannot keep up with the rising prices. It is getting harder and harder to make sense of the environmentalist movement's agenda. Constituents in my riding, and indeed Canadians across the country, are begging for relief. There is a stark reality that human civilization depends on its access to reliable and affordable energy. Because fossil fuels are uniquely accessible, energy-dense and transportable, they fit the world's present needs precisely. Let me be clear: There is no nation in the world that produces oil and gas as ethically as Canada does. What a proud legacy we are offering the world. The tax holiday that we are suggesting today would reduce the cost of everything. It is efficient, immediate and the most effective path to benefit people who rely on vehicles, and to benefit people who are faced with choosing between heat, food and transportation. It is a common-sense solution to help alleviate a manufactured Liberal problem. This tax relief in response to soaring costs at the pump will provide Canadians with a small bit of relief that they are so desperately in need of as the cost of everything is going up. As a representative of a large agricultural riding, I want to take a moment to address food security. Our rural communities are also agricultural powerhouses that rely on heavy machinery for food production, and that machinery needs fuel. Few farmers in my riding have the ability to pass these costs directly to the consumer. They come off their bottom line. There are those industries that can pass on energy costs to the consumer, and the result is a dramatic increase in costs throughout Canadian homes. This scenario means that everyone continues to pay for bad policy. These added costs will also affect the availability of the products on our store shelves. In agricultural circles, the increased cost of production will be close to 70% for some inputs this year, and fuel is a major factor in this ongoing cash crisis. Make no mistake: farmers are not the ones profiting from increased food prices. When it comes to passing on the costs, transportation expenses add to the consumer's plight. I feel that so many of these people pushing the anti-oil and gas narrative have no real idea what it is like to live north of the 49th parallel. They have no real understanding of how severely impacted northern communities are at the hands of these rising fuel costs. If we look at many northern communities, such as Barren Lands First Nation in Brochet, Manitoba, we see families running out of gas and struggling with food prices. It is serious. The Liberals' answer to high gas prices is to tell people that they should buy electric cars. Let us be honest here: if one cannot afford $150 worth of fuel, how can one afford a $50,000 EV? The world's future may involve a shift to more renewable energy, but such a future is not imminent. Those that insist otherwise are simply ignoring the historical and scientific evidence. Growing worldwide demand for fossil fuel ensures our legacy energy sources will remain steadfast even as other sources become prominent. Canadians are ready to see this country's energy and natural resource sector play a stronger leadership role in edging out less regulated and less principled supplier nations in the global supply pool. I want to take a moment to address the elephant in the room: the fact that the Liberals voted against our motion calling on Canada to export more natural gas to displace Russian natural gas in Europe. Getting Canadian natural gas to tidewater is vital to Canada's security and it is vital to our economy, and in the face of Putin's illegal war in Ukraine, it is vital to Europe's defence and security. Getting more low-carbon natural gas to market, especially with the cutting-edge technology that Canadian industry is using, is also consistent with our environmental goals as we transition to various energy sources. It is time for the government to have an honest conversation with Canadians about pipelines. Canada's European allies that are procuring natural gas from Russia are funding Putin's war chest. Canada has an amazing supply of natural gas, but we are lagging behind in the game because those calling the shots have no sense for geopolitics and no vision of what the path forward to more sustainable energy looks like. European leaders have already raised the prospect of replacing Russian-supplied natural gas with Canadian natural gas, yet the government refuses to do its part and, sadly, builds roadblocks. Those who vehemently oppose pipeline construction and building our capacity to enable liquefied natural gas exports from Canada's east coast to Europe are aiding, abetting and condoning Putin's behaviour. How ironic is it that woke pipeline policy has the U.S.A. considering sourcing Venezuelan heavy oil for its gulf refineries? Meanwhile, our Canadian oil is being stopped by movie stars and anti-Canadian oil activists. Who are these people really working for? Canadians can expect to pay even more at the pumps as Russia's attack on Ukraine puts even greater pressure on the already surging oil price environment. The trend of increasing gas prices reveals the truth behind who is actually looking out for Canadians. Conservatives will always be the voice of Canadians looking for relief from the rising cost of living. Supporting this tax holiday would help reduce the cost of everything. Transportation and production costs would decrease, giving some relief to consumers for necessities like food. At a time when the rights of Canadians seem to be continually trampled on by the Liberal government, this tax relief would show that we, as political leaders, care about Canadians, not some ideological fantasy. Canadians deserve to eat. Canadians need their vehicles to go to work. Canadians need to heat their homes. Canadians deserve better. I hope all members will support the initiative presented today. It is time to follow the lead of the Conservative Party and be the voice of Canadians looking for relief from the accelerating cost of living. It is time for the NDP-Liberal government to join us in supporting all Canadians, not just the ones rich enough to prop up their green agenda at the cost of others' well-being.

1481 words

All Topics

Mr. Chris Bittle (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.)

Mar/22/22 4:04:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in the hon. member's speech he talked about ideological positions, but the complete ignorance of global climate change and how that will affect Canadians who will not be able to get insurance when crops will not be able to grow was interesting. It is honestly disgusting to hear members of the Conservative Party suggest that other members in this House do not stand and support Ukraine. It is unfortunate that we have come to the point where this type of rhetoric happens. The member left out the part about the European Union and European allies wanting to transition to a green economy to eliminate their reliance on Russian oil. Why did he leave that out of his speech? Does it not really go with his ideological narrative?

130 words

Mr. Earl Dreeshen

Mar/22/22 4:05:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, having been a member of OSCE and having spent time in Tbilisi and Berlin talking to people from the European Union about this issue, I know they are not as ideological as the member is indicating. They understand the necessities. They know what is happening with the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 pipelines and they recognize the significance of the damage that is being done. Believe me, when Putin invaded Crimea, it was not for windmills and solar panels. He went there for its oil and gas reserves. That is exactly what is happening there. They know that it has to be replaced, so it is not as ideological as what we see across the aisle.

120 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

Mar/22/22 4:06:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I salute my colleague who sits with me on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. Sometimes we are on the same wavelength, and sometimes we are not at all. Today is an example of the latter. Oil companies benefit when the price of crude oil goes up. Oil companies benefit at every stage of the refining process. Oil companies pocket the price increase at the pump. Ultimately, oil companies are the ones who benefit from inflation. Some oil companies have Russian oligarchs at the helm. I have a hard time understanding why my colleague has not taken that into consideration.

104 words

Mr. Earl Dreeshen

Mar/22/22 4:07:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I always appreciate having an opportunity to discuss issues with the member from the Bloc on the environment committee. What we are talking about today is significant. We talk about provincial issues and how provinces can help their communities. One of the aspects that I know Quebec talks about is this one, the question of how it can help to reduce greenhouse gas, and not just in Quebec, where it has done a good job. It has a source of energy that is beneficial to the country. However, there is another aspect, which is that Alberta and western Canada also have an energy source that is not only beneficial to the country but to the world. I guess there is a bit of a difference, but I respect their energy sources and I ask that they respect ours.

140 words

Mr. Blake Desjarlais (Edmonton Griesbach, NDP)

Mar/22/22 4:08:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the residents of my community in Edmonton Griesbach are also suffering from this affordability crisis. It is hurting them not just in everyday rent, gas and groceries; they are also scared for their kids. What I want to hear the member talk about is how this country's economy is truly going to help these folks in a real way. This proposal in many ways is temporary, but we know that this crisis may be long-lasting. These companies are profiting. Suncor, for example, profited by $4.1 billion, paying out $3.9 billion to its shareholders. CN Rail had $7.7 billion in profit. Would the member agree that we need to tax profiteers who have made unjust amounts of money and reinvest the money in the people who need it most as a real plan for affordability?

141 words

Mr. Earl Dreeshen

Mar/22/22 4:09:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have spent a lot of time in Edmonton and took public transit there when it was necessary. A lot of times it was to go to watch my Eskimos play football, but that is a different story. To be serious about the question, it is important that we understand some of the reasons that the prices are so high right now. We have a country that is rich in resources and the Canadian dollar is at 79¢ right now. These are the kinds of reasons that the prices at the pump are so severe. We have to look at the overall economic impact of what is taking place.

112 words

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

Mar/22/22 4:10:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would first like to say that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Kingston and the Islands. Today, we are here to discuss the opposition motion moved by my hon. colleague from Abbotsford, which addresses the price of oil and gas. The wording of the motion is non‑binding on the government, but I am glad we are having this conversation about affordability for Canadians and our constituents. The discussion is important at this time. First, the current price of gas and the problems it is causing across the country are linked to the situation and the war in Ukraine. The price of gas and oil is based on an international market. It is not unique to Canada; it is linked in different ways to producers around the world. When I have conversations with my constituents in Kings—Hants, I am reminded of that. Part of the challenge that we are all going to have to face is the fact that although we are not directly involved militarily on the ground in Ukraine, the western world is responding by sanctioning the products that are coming from the Russian Federation as part of our plan to help deter future Russia aggression and obviously to respond to the situation right now. I have said in other speeches that the sanctions alone are not going to change the situation overnight in Ukraine. We are there on other fronts with military hardware and with logistics, both lethal and non-lethal, along with our NATO allies, to try to provide support to those who are courageously fighting for democracy, not only in Ukraine but around the world. I think Canadians need to understand that on a temporary basis, in the interim, we are going to be facing higher gas prices as part of the collective cost to fight the war in Ukraine, indirectly at this point, and I think we are all concerned about what this could represent in the days ahead with the changing sands in our foreign policy context. I also want to take a moment to explain carbon pricing, because my Conservative colleagues in particular are highlighting their idea that the carbon price is unilaterally driving up gas prices and that it is the government's fault that things at the pump can sometimes be challenging. I want to debunk that, at least as it relates to my province of Nova Scotia, and then also speak about what this represents in backstop provinces that do not have an equivalent environmental plan to tackle emissions. In Nova Scotia, particularly because of the work under the McNeil Liberal government, there has been tremendous effort undertaken to make our electricity grid and our power generation renewable. That has resulted in a higher cost to individuals, but there is no direct price on pollution levied at the pumps on gasoline. I have had calls over the last couple of weeks about the price of gas and what the Government of Canada can do vis-à-vis the price on pollution. As it relates to Nova Scotia, a lot of that has already been implemented through our electricity rates. Monies that the government is collecting under its cap and trade system at the provincial level are being distributed toward important initiatives to help transition households, particularly vulnerable households, to a lower-carbon future. Of course, in backstop provinces such as Ontario, essentially the way I like to describe it is that monies collected by the government on the carbon price are centralized and then distributed back to individuals on a per capita basis, which actually creates an incentive for individuals to change their behaviour. As a rural member in this House, I take notice that sometimes there are challenges if people do not have other options, and I think that this is a legitimate policy conversation that can be had, especially as the price on pollution advances in the days ahead. I want to take a moment to discuss some of the initiatives our government has taken since 2015. First, we introduced a $10‑a‑day child care spaces program, like the model in Quebec, to reduce the cost to families. I think this is very important because it helps parents get back to work and reduces costs for middle‑class and low‑income families. It is a great step by this government to advance the interests of families who need help. I also want to talk about the Canada housing benefit. This is a program that is a portable benefit that has been delivered to individuals who are in need. We talk about affordable housing. That means different things to different people, but at the end of the day we are trying to put a program in place that allows an individual to move to different locations as their circumstances warrant, with support from the Government of Canada on the basis of their income. The traditional program has been that someone will be set up in a particular location and given their affordable rent. This program has a lot more merit and we need to continue to remind Canadians of the benefits it represents. The Canada child benefit, again, has brought countless hundreds of thousands of Canadian children out of poverty and supported families. I do not need to go into great detail because one could look at Hansard and the testimony of members of Parliament about what this has meant for their loved ones and their families. It is truly making a difference and supports affordability, which is really what the text of this motion is about. I am the member for Kings—Hants, in Nova Scotia. My riding is mostly rural and is made up of small communities of people who are, on average, older. The guaranteed income supplement is very important for seniors and vulnerable people, which is why our government introduced measures to strengthen this program in the last Parliament. Right now, we have commitments of course to extending that by $500 a month and we have strengthened old age security, which are other important measures relating to affordability. I want to talk about the importance of intercity busing. I mentioned I am an MP in a rural area. The way the Government of Canada's programs are designed is that we have a lot of support that is accessible to the provinces to work with municipalities on transit in larger cities. However, if someone is vulnerable right now, does not have access to a vehicle and does not have the ability to afford the cost of a vehicle to get them from place to place, intercity busing is key. The government has had other initiatives in the past. One point that is extremely important is looking at the investing in Canada infrastructure program and the bilaterals we have with the provinces and territories, and finding ways for flexibility to support intercity busing, particularly given the fact we have gone through COVID and there have been challenges. The last thing I will say is that the text of this motion talks about eight cents on average that a temporary tax relief would give to the consumer. What I do not think has been discussed is whether we, as members of Parliament, should be also privy to that type of benefit. This comes down to an ideological choice of saying we can either just let an eight-cent reduction in gas prices on a temporary basis be available to everyone, including millionaires and people who really do not need that help, or we can continue to collect revenue as the government normally would and create a specific program that would be targeted to individuals who actually have challenges right now related to affordability. I dare say there is not one member of Parliament in the House, on a salary of $180,000 a year, who needs eight cents back per litre at the pump. It is lower income Canadians who do. That is a fundamental flaw with the text of this motion. I look forward to taking questions from my hon. colleagues.

1364 words

All Topics

Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC)

Mar/22/22 4:20:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask a question. I want to thank the member for his speech. He does a very good job in the House. I also represent a very rural riding. I know he does as well, but his riding could actually fit inside of my riding 19 times. That is how big my riding is.

60 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer

Mar/22/22 4:21:32 p.m.
Watch

It sure does, because people have to drive and people have to commute. The point I am trying to make is that the cost of fuel right now is exorbitant. It disproportionately impacts people who live in my riding who have to drive great distances to get to work and for their kids to play hockey, to play baseball or to go school. We have seen school closures over a number of years in a lot of these small towns, which have been systematically forgotten about by governments at all levels. Saskatchewan put forward a climate plan based on the model that New Brunswick has. I would like to hear the member's thoughts on why the government cancelled or denied Saskatchewan's request to use the same plan that New Brunswick has?

133 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Mar/22/22 4:21:32 p.m.
Watch

It is not the size of your riding that counts.

10 words

Mr. Kody Blois

Mar/22/22 4:21:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, at 19 times the size, I can appreciate the challenges of getting to every corner of his riding and what that would represent. Even 5,000 square kilometres in Kings—Hants can sometimes feel daunting. I do not have specific information to answer his question vis-à-vis the intergovernmental aspect of Saskatchewan versus New Brunswick. I will talk about affordability writ large. I think it is an important conversation to be had. We are seeing challenges, as I mentioned, because of the war in Ukraine, around food supplies and around fertilizer for farmers, which I know that member would know a lot about given the concentration he represents in his riding, so I do think we need to have conversations about affordability. My issue is that the text of this motion is about eight cents per litre. I take notice that for some people that is a very big deal. However, the text of the motion is not very targeted. I think there are better ways to go about having targeted measures for Canadians who actually need the support, as opposed to having that member benefit from eight cents a litre. I think he would suggest he does not necessarily need it at this point.

209 words

Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

Mar/22/22 4:22:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Kings—Hants, who regularly comes up with practical solutions to very real problems. I would like to ask him how he plans to reduce Quebec's sales tax, the QST, which is under provincial jurisdiction. Will there be some kind of compensation? Is this the NDP's influence we are seeing?

59 words

All Topics

Mr. Kody Blois

Mar/22/22 4:23:08 p.m.
Watch

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

74 words

All Topics

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP)

Mar/22/22 4:23:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for bringing up child care. I can say that I am standing here today because of the Quebec model for $5 day care. In 1998, I was happy to take advantage of that. If the federal government had invested in day care many years earlier, there would be more women sitting in this chamber tonight. I just want to mention to the member that what we are really talking about here is an affordability crisis in the country. With child care, it is a wonderful opportunity for families. Unfortunately, young people are deciding not to have families due to the rising cost of housing, food and living in Canada. Could the member tell us why the Liberals continue to protect wealth-accumulating corporations and not do enough, very little or almost nothing, to ease the pressures on average Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet with the price of housing, the price of food and the cost of living?

168 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Mar/22/22 4:24:54 p.m.
Watch

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

10 words

Mr. Kody Blois

Mar/22/22 4:24:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is a lot to try to answer in 30 seconds. Let me just say, as one of the younger members in the House at 31 years old, I have friends in that same situation of trying to be able to own a home and start a family. That resonates with me. I do not have time to properly address the question vis-à-vis the larger policy context of whether or not it is prudent to continue to spend to try to create the affordability and support that Canadian families need or what other measures that are non-spending in a world of 5.7% inflation right now are going to be crucial to be able to make affordability important for Canadian families. I think it is an important conversation to be had, and I do think we will be hearing more about it in the House in the days ahead.

154 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Mar/22/22 4:25:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today to speak to the opposition day motion that has been introduced by the Conservative Party. I just want to start by saying that I am glad to see such a motion being put forward today. It is a motion that actually addresses policy. It is a nice departure from what we typically see coming from across the way, which are motions that are geared more toward personal attacks on the Prime Minister or a particular minister. Rather, this is a motion that is actually discussing policy and putting forward a policy idea. Notwithstanding the fact that I disagree with this particular course of action, I am very grateful for the fact that what has been introduced by the Conservatives today through this opposition motion is of substance and can actually allow us to have a very good wholesome debate about a possible policy to implement in Canada. When reading the text of the motion, the first thing that popped out to me was the issue in the motion with respect to GST, HST and the QST. The reason is that QST is the Quebec sales tax. It is a tax levied by the Quebec government. I am not sure how my Bloc Québécois colleagues feel about this, given that they stand up routinely for Quebec sovereignty in this House in terms of its ability to manage its own finances, but I find it perplexing that the Conservatives would bring forward a motion that would somehow allow the federal government to inject itself into the jurisdiction of Quebec, namely by creating options to rebate some sales taxes that are collected by Quebec. Perhaps that was not the intent of the motion. Perhaps the idea that the drafter of the motion had was something different, but at the end of the day that is certainly how it presents itself, at least in my reading of it. I also find it very interesting that, for the six years I have been in the House, I have heard time and time again the Conservative Party criticize the government, quite often blaming the price of oil in Canada squarely on the Prime Minister as if it was his fault that the price of oil was so low that Alberta and other western provinces were not able to extract efficiently more oil out of the ground. Now, suddenly, they seem to be in a position where they are basically advocating that gas, which is made from oil, be now subsidized or the funds that are collected by the government with respect to that increase should now somehow be turned back over, basically criticizing the fact that the price of oil is now so high. I think the issue I have the biggest concern with, as it relates to this opposition motion, is one that brings me back to my time as a city councillor and mayor of Kingston. One of the things that we relied upon quite seriously when building infrastructure in the city of Kingston was being able to rely on what was at least then called the gas tax, which is now called the Canada community-building fund. This is where a portion of that HST that is collected at the pumps is actually taken by the federal government and distributed right back to municipalities so that those municipalities can spend it on very important infrastructure projects in their communities. There are more than 650 community recipients of various different municipalities and jurisdictions within Ontario alone that receive funding through the former gas tax and now the Canada community-building fund, which totals roughly $816 million annually in Ontario alone. It is very concerning that we might reduce, even just for a short term, the amount of money that can be collected and turned back over to municipalities to invest specifically in infrastructure. A lot of the time, at least in Kingston, we spent a lot of that gas tax money on improving the infrastructure within our transit network, everything from road rehabilitation right through to public transit, quite often relying on tourism perspectives to get people in and out of our community. We relied, as a municipality, quite heavily on that funding. I know a lot of municipalities throughout Ontario do that. The AMO, the Association of Municipalities Ontario, does a very good job for the federal government of tracking exactly where that money is spent. We can go to its website to see where money from the gas tax, now known as the Canada community-building fund, is being distributed throughout the province of Ontario and know exactly how that money is being applied. I am not surprised that the Conservatives want to perhaps take this position on the issue. If we look back, historically Stephen Harper had an absolutely horrible record at providing infrastructure money to municipalities throughout Canada. This government has taken a much different approach that says municipalities throughout Canada are our partners and that we will partner with them to make sure we are building the infrastructure they need not only for today, but more importantly for tomorrow. That is what this money is all about. That is the importance of collecting and redistributing the gas tax, now known as the Canada community-building fund, back to municipalities throughout Ontario. I recognize that the Conservatives might have a different approach on this, and I respect that. I respect the fact that when they bring forward a motion like this, they might be signalling back to that style of engagement with municipalities. However, it certainly is not the manner in which this government has acted in looking at that relationship to build infrastructure with municipalities over the last six years, nor is it in any way an indication, if we look at the language coming from the finance minister, of what our plan is moving forward. We genuinely want to be there with municipalities to get them the funding they need to keep building infrastructure, and a huge portion of that comes through the Canada community-building fund and the collection of HST at the pumps. If members think about that, it is the people using the roads who are contributing to this fund. They are the ones who will be putting money into the fund through that tax, which will go back to investing in and building on the infrastructure they are using. There is no doubt, and I will echo a lot of what has been said in the House today, that what we are seeing here is a rise in the price of gas. Members of the opposition continually try to suggest that this and inflation are somehow the responsibility of the Prime Minister. Somehow they think the Prime Minister of Canada, somebody who they have criticized for years as being unable to do anything, suddenly has the ability to arbitrarily affect the price of oil and gas throughout the world, and inflation for that matter. However, this is a global problem. This is a problem that has come largely from the war that Vladimir Putin began with Ukraine. We have seen why this is happening, and it is a stark reality of the situation throughout the world. This is the reality of what happens when countries become dependent on fossil fuels, and energy in particular, from other jurisdictions around the world. They become dependent and reliant on those other jurisdictions, and that is exactly what we are seeing. When we look at what the leaders in other parts of the world, in particular in Europe, are saying, they want to move at a faster pace away from fossil fuels and transition to more renewable, sustainable sources. This leads me to my last point. Once again, the Conservatives are bringing forward a motion that is entirely based on fossil fuels. They have this incredible addiction to and obsession with oil in particular. They are unable to realize and recognize that we are moving away from oil. The world is moving away from oil. This is not a Liberal thing. It is not an NDP thing. It is not a Bloc thing. It is not a Green Party thing. The world is moving away from oil, and the Conservatives need to get on board, figure that out and become part of it so that we can capitalize on our opportunities in Canada to ensure that happens. Even in the province of Alberta, the growth in the renewable energy sector is far outpacing any growth in the fossil fuel industry. Members are laughing at it as though they are concerned about it. We can look at the stats from Statistics Canada that relate to that growth. It is happening, and it is time that we get on board and be part of it.

1481 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 43