Discussion · Government Orders
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Québécois
“Before we vote on this bill, the government should tell us how much of the fuel tax cut actually helps shoppers instead of retailers. The finance department can measure this. This money would help more if we gave it directly to the people who need it most.”
“Mr. Speaker, I understand that there are all sorts of perspectives in a social science like economics, but, at the end of the day, one plus one equals two. I did not tell the House that none of the discount ended up in consumers’ pockets. I did not say that. The first thing we need to know is how much of the rebate ended up in consumers’ pockets. We should know that before we vote. Second, I am concerned that the policy is not targeted. That same amount of money could provide four or five times more help to the 20% of people who have the greatest difficulty making ends meet. That is the question I am asking. This is not about a school of thought, a perspective or a point of view. If my colleague thinks that one plus one does not equal two, then he should not be debating financial issues because there are ways to measure these things. At the end of the day, he may believe that a measure is worthwhile if 30% of the discount ends up in retailers’ pockets. He is entitled to believe that, but he cannot tell me that the facts are flexible depending on how we feel when we get up in the morning. There are ways to calculate that. There are people at the Department of Finance who know how to do it. I assume that it has been done and that it has not been published.”
Mr. Speaker, I understand that there are all sorts of perspectives in a social science like economics, but, at the end of the day, one plus one equals two. I did not tell the House that none of the discount ended up in consumers’ pockets. I did not say that. The first thing we need to know is how much of the rebate ended up in consumers’ pockets. We should know that before we vote. Second, I am concerned that the policy is not targeted. That same amount of money could provide four or five times more help to the 20% of people who have the greatest difficulty making ends meet. That is the question I am asking. This is not about a school of thought, a perspective or a point of view. If my colleague thinks that one plus one does not equal two, then he should not be debating financial issues because there are ways to measure these things. At the end of the day, he may believe that a measure is worthwhile if 30% of the discount ends up in retailers’ pockets. He is entitled to believe that, but he cannot tell me that the facts are flexible depending on how we feel when we get up in the morning. There are ways to calculate that. There are people at the Department of Finance who know how to do it. I assume that it has been done and that it has not been published.