Jean-Denis Garon, Mirabel
“I do not want to rush this bill through. It costs $5.3 billion to cut the gas tax, but gas companies often keep that money instead of passing the savings to drivers. Rich people with big trucks benefit the most, while people with low incomes or no cars get little help. I want a committee to study this bill, hear from experts, and look at better ways to help people who actually need it.”
“Madam Speaker, that was not the first time I have stood up thinking it was my turn to speak. Sometimes we get a bit rusty after going on vacation or being away for a while. As members may know, there are no surprises with me. I always like to start a parliamentary session by telling the Speaker that I am happy to see her. Our Speaker is glowing today, and it is great to see her here in such good health. I am delighted to see her in the chair, especially since we are kicking off the parliamentary session with a pretty important bill. This bill is very short, and we are familiar with it because we already passed a previous version in April. The government simply wants to extend the fuel excise tax suspension for a few more months. I want the government to know that I believe the work we do as parliamentarians is important. I think it is important for us to examine this measure in committee and to hear from witnesses. It is important for us to question how effective this measure is. It is important to consider alternatives to this measure. This is not the only measure with the potential to help lower costs for consumers, farmers and people along the distribution chains. That is why it is important for us to do this parliamentary work. I was a little worried that the government might try to fast-track this bill by imposing closure and saying that the bill made sense, that it was not controversial, that we did not need to do our duty as parliamentarians and that we had already passed it in April. It is vital to remember the importance of the opposition’s role. This is especially true in a Parliament with a growing majority. It is also vital to remember the role of civil society and the importance of hearing from witnesses. There are people in civil society, people in the private sector, academics and researchers who, in many ways, are much more knowledgeable about this tax mechanism than the Minister of Finance himself is. The government should have the decency to invite those people to talk to us about the tax. What is really going on with gas prices and the gas tax? I talked about that during the debates we had before the summer recess and the by-elections. Speaking of the by-elections, I would like to welcome my new colleague, who happens to come from my home region. He should know that there is a Garon Street in Chicoutimi that was named in honour of my grandfather. I never knew him, because he passed away a long time ago, but I am confident he would be a sovereignist today. Anyway, that is a whole other debate. When I spoke about gas prices in April, I decided to concentrate on a fairly stable indicator, namely the price of a litre of unleaded gas—which was a major issue at one time—at a self-service station over the past 25 years. To account for inflation, I adjusted it using the consumer price index. I found that, over a 25-year period, the price of gas, on average, has not gone up, which is quite surprising. In real terms, the price at the pump has gone up, but everything else in the economy has gone up as well. When we factor in inflation, the price remains fairly stable at about $1.60. Even though the long-term trend is flat, the price of gas fluctuates significantly. It can go from $1.60 to $2 to $1.40. Over the past 25 years or so, the price of gas, in real terms, has fluctuated significantly but has remained fairly stable. For 80% of Quebeckers and Canadians, there has been a significant real increase in purchasing power. What that means is that people’s wages and incomes, even after adjusting for inflation, have increased faster than the cost of living. What happens when the wealthiest 80% of Canadians experience a significant increase in their purchasing power and see, in real terms, gas prices remain stable but fluctuate slightly? We get an increase in the number of kilometres driven per person, an increase in household fuel consumption, an increase in average vehicle size and an increase in the number of vehicles per household. In the Montreal area, during that period, the number of motor vehicles grew faster than the population. I am not sure whether the 80% of people with bigger, gas-guzzling vehicles are the ones who should be given priority and given immediate relief through a gas tax measure, especially since it is unclear whether this measure would also support the energy transition. This is something we should discuss with witnesses in committee. We know that this is a government that has abdicated its climate responsibilities and abandoned its greenhouse gas reduction targets, so I am not sure whether the people in that 80% are the ones who should be receiving the most immediate assistance. The other 20% of people are struggling to make ends meet, are living paycheque to paycheque and may be dealing with unforeseen circumstances, such as a breakup or a move. Often those people have to have a car because they can no longer afford to live in major cities and urban centres, where housing has become very expensive. Even though the price of gas has remained relatively stable over time, when adjusted for inflation, these people are very vulnerable to fluctuations in gas prices. For a household that is struggling to make ends meet, it is a big deal when gas goes from $1.68 a litre to $1.75. It might mean skipping meals, making the kids do without, not buying as many clothes or cutting back spending on vacations, education or school supplies. That is the issue. That once again brings us back to the question of whether this measure is helping those who really need it. This measure benefits 100% of people who use gasoline, including the Conservative members who pull into the parking lot in trucks 10 times bigger than my car. The government is spending money on everyone to help the 20% of people who really need it. We need to rethink this approach. Would a targeted transfer not be more appropriate? I know that the Minister of Finance increased the GST credit, which was good. Nobody took issue with that last winter or last spring. He changed the name. I do not remember what he called it, but the words “Canada Strong” must be in there somewhere because that is what they call everything. He bumped up the benefit that goes to these people, the folks who need it most. This transfer payment, this GST credit—the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, I believe it is called—is income-tested and adjusted based on family size according to the same criteria as those used to calculate family benefits, making it possible to direct support to the people who need it. What does that mean? It means that with $1 of public money, we can help someone in need five times over. I think this is a conversation we need to have. When someone goes to a gas station, they take money out of their pocket and pay for a litre of gas. There are two ways to help: either increase the amount of money in their pocket, or bring down the price of gas—or at least keep the increase in check. I do not know what kind of reasoning led the government to conclude that the only way to help the poorest people was simply to manipulate the rising price of a litre of gas. If the government believes that people need more help, I think that the grocery benefit might be a good option. It is worth discussing, especially since there is this myth floating around that a one-cent reduction in the excise tax translates to a one-cent reduction in gas prices. That is not true. When the excise tax is reduced, people along the distribution chain, like the distributor, the refiner or the gas stations themselves, pocket the difference. There is definitely no guarantee that it will end up in consumers’ pockets. Why is that? It is because consumer demand for this is often fixed. People have to get around, especially the 20% who are struggling the most and need help the most. These people have to get from point A to point B. They have to go to work. They have to go grocery shopping. These people need to fill up their tanks, and they will do it. They will fill up at $1.68, $1.72, $1.80 or $1.85 per litre. They will do it even if it means going without something else. Retailers know this, and the oil industry knows it. In economics, this is called inelastic demand. That means the retailer knows they can pocket the excise tax reduction because people are going to fill up anyway. That is what we are seeing. Gas stations have public relations teams. Of course, they lower prices for a day or two. Then people forget. After that, they blame Iran and raise the price. We are beginning to see studies on other countries that have used the current government’s method to put money in people’s pockets. David Byrne is a world-renowned researcher in industrial economics and, more specifically, in competition issues related to gas prices. That is his specialty. I do not know what led him to focus on that, but he has devoted his whole life to it. He started studying Australia’s data and realized that the mechanism that Canada is using was not actually benefiting the poorest people. The benefit was spread out through the entire chain. Does the government think retailers need help? Perhaps. Does it think gas stations need help? Perhaps. It obviously thinks oil companies need help. It spends its time giving them public money and subsidies. That is about the only thing it is interested in, other than travelling. The idea that debating the bill today means we are going to debate assistance that will end up in the pockets of the people who need it most has yet to be proven. We need empirical evidence and data. We need proof that that is the case. The Bloc Québécois has been calling for an increase in old age security for years. Seniors are often on fixed incomes. They too are dealing with inflation. They too have to travel. They too have problems, because taking public transit often becomes challenging with age. They need to go out to receive health care services. We were told that seniors 75 and over would receive an OAS increase, but not seniors aged 65 to 74. They are somehow a less important, second class of seniors. At the time, the Minister of Finance and his predecessor told us that there was no money for that; it was too expensive. As I recall, the cost was between $3.8 billion and $4 billion a year. There was no money to help out seniors. How much does today’s proposed measure cost? I looked at the assessment. It adds up to $5.3 billion. Today, we are talking about $5.3 billion that will probably fall seriously short of helping the people who need it the most. Furthermore, if the excise tax reduction does affect the cost of gas, it will also go to fill up people’s Hummers. Does this mean that the whole thing is bad? No, it means that it may not be targeted enough, that it may not be the only mechanism available, and that it is very expensive. It also means that the government has the money to do this. It also means that there is another way to use these funds. The issue is not whether we can afford $5.3 billion. We probably can. The question is, what are we forgoing? There are seniors tuning in today. They have been asked to tighten their belts ever since the Liberals took office. I mean when they really took office, back in 2015, because that is when it started. That is what seniors are being told. There are seniors in all our ridings. Madam Speaker, I know seniors in your riding who are telling me the same thing. In short, the government will be telling them that it actually can come up with $5.3 billion. It is important for us to do our jobs as parliamentarians. I am not making some grand speech today to say that everything is wonderful or terrible; rather, this is a call for cooler heads to prevail, a call to study this measure. It is a call to say that this does not actually need to be rushed through, that the government does not always have to forge full speed ahead, that it does not have to circumvent committees and that we do not need to cut corners on the parliamentary work we are being paid to do. We heard from witnesses when we first studied the bill. Many people said their piece. There is no unanimity in Quebec. I am not saying that everyone is against it, and I am not saying that everyone is in favour of it, but there is clearly a conversation in Quebec about the usefulness of this measure. There obviously is one. There were pre-budget consultations. The budgets come out in the fall. That was done in June. There was work done in August, with our colleagues on the Standing Committee on Finance. Some witnesses appeared. They were diligent people such as Luc Godbout, who holds the research chair in taxation and public finance at the Université de Sherbrooke. It has long been recognized that these folks see it as their duty to keep the public informed, and they take that duty very seriously. Luc Godbout said: ...in our opinion, the federal fuel excise tax exemption seems ill-advised from a public finance standpoint. It would be better not to extend this tax holiday and to maximize the chances of restoring the tax as it was and eventually indexing it. The other issue is that the gas tax, when adjusted for inflation, goes down if it is not indexed. Its impact on our wallets has been shrinking over the years. That is what has happened over time. Luc Godbout went on to say: I would remind you that a tax holiday of this nature benefits higher-income households more than low-income households. So in order to facilitate the reintroduction of the tax, consideration should probably be given to putting it into a community development fund or some other fund dedicated to that. I think it is important that these folks appear before the committee. It would be worth asking them what their analysis is based on. It would be worthwhile to hear from other parties who hold opposite views. If we question the measure, we are accused of being against Canada and against families and not wanting to help Canadians. I should hope that we are better than that in this Parliament. There are other people who appeared before the committee. In its pre-budget submission, Alliance Transit stated: Following the recent abolition of the carbon tax, this new tax break does nothing for families who do not own a vehicle or for those who have purchased electric vehicles, and there are many such families in Quebec and major cities across the country. This tax break is also costing Canada a significant amount of money, when those funds could be put to better use fighting poverty and maintaining our infrastructure, which is in a sorry state. This measure is unfair and short-sighted. Who are the members of Alliance Transit? I have a whole page of organizations that endorse its message, including Accès transports viables; Équiterre; the Réseau des centres d’expertise de mobilité, formerly known as the ACGDQ; the Regroupement national des conseils régionaux de l’environnement du Québec; Trajectoire Québec; Vivre en ville; Ville en vert; Vélo Québec; Nature Québec; and Les oubliés de l’autobus. That is a lot of people. What these people are saying is not based on ideology. It is based on facts. We know that. Young people learn this at university in their undergraduate studies. They are taught that just because consumers are theoretically getting a tax break does not mean that the person running the business and managing the tax break, which is the gas station in the case of the excise tax, is not going to pocket some of the money. What needs to happen? First, we need to have a broader conversation. The Liberals are here, and they are listening. Never again will the Liberals be able to say that increasing OAS for seniors is too expensive. Never again will they be able to tell us that this is a poorly targeted way to help because OAS decreases as income rises. It is more targeted. The Liberals need to tell us whether this increase is going to become permanent. Economist Milton Friedman once said that nothing is so permanent as a temporary policy. They did it once. Now they are doing it again. Will it still be temporary in a few months’ time if there is another war? Will it still be temporary if the situation in Iran keeps dragging on? How does this fit into the budget? How will the government inform taxpayers? It made an announcement in the middle of summer, tabled a notice of ways and means and is trying to rush it through. At what point will they renew the measure next time, and based on what criteria? Does the Minister of Finance simply lick his finger, hold it up to the wind and decide to renew it? Are there any criteria? What are they? Has anyone measured the impact? Do we know if there are any consequences? Has the government hired researchers to figure that out? What studies has the Department of Finance carried out since April to demonstrate that this measure will actually put money in the pockets of those who need it? I think this Parliament needs to consider legislation like this, especially since it is already in effect and is already subject to a notice of ways and means. We are not blocking it. This Parliament just needs to determine whether, under the current circumstances, this is the right way to invest taxpayers’ money.”
Madam Speaker, that was not the first time I have stood up thinking it was my turn to speak. Sometimes we get a bit rusty after going on vacation or being away for a while. As members may know, there are no surprises with me. I always like to start a parliamentary session by telling the Speaker that I am happy to see her. Our Speaker is glowing today, and it is great to see her here in such good health. I am delighted to see her in the chair, especially since we are kicking off the parliamentary session with a pretty important bill. This bill is very short, and we are familiar with it because we already passed a previous version in April. The government simply wants to extend the fuel excise tax suspension for a few more months. I want the government to know that I believe the work we do as parliamentarians is important. I think it is important for us to examine this measure in committee and to hear from witnesses. It is important for us to question how effective this measure is. It is important to consider alternatives to this measure. This is not the only measure with the potential to help lower costs for consumers, farmers and people along the distribution chains. That is why it is important for us to do this parliamentary work. I was a little worried that the government might try to fast-track this bill by imposing closure and saying that the bill made sense, that it was not controversial, that we did not need to do our duty as parliamentarians and that we had already passed it in April. It is vital to remember the importance of the opposition’s role. This is especially true in a Parliament with a growing majority. It is also vital to remember the role of civil society and the importance of hearing from witnesses. There are people in civil society, people in the private sector, academics and researchers who, in many ways, are much more knowledgeable about this tax mechanism than the Minister of Finance himself is. The government should have the decency to invite those people to talk to us about the tax. What is really going on with gas prices and the gas tax? I talked about that during the debates we had before the summer recess and the by-elections. Speaking of the by-elections, I would like to welcome my new colleague, who happens to come from my home region. He should know that there is a Garon Street in Chicoutimi that was named in honour of my grandfather. I never knew him, because he passed away a long time ago, but I am confident he would be a sovereignist today. Anyway, that is a whole other debate. When I spoke about gas prices in April, I decided to concentrate on a fairly stable indicator, namely the price of a litre of unleaded gas—which was a major issue at one time—at a self-service station over the past 25 years. To account for inflation, I adjusted it using the consumer price index. I found that, over a 25-year period, the price of gas, on average, has not gone up, which is quite surprising. In real terms, the price at the pump has gone up, but everything else in the economy has gone up as well. When we factor in inflation, the price remains fairly stable at about $1.60. Even though the long-term trend is flat, the price of gas fluctuates significantly. It can go from $1.60 to $2 to $1.40. Over the past 25 years or so, the price of gas, in real terms, has fluctuated significantly but has remained fairly stable. For 80% of Quebeckers and Canadians, there has been a significant real increase in purchasing power. What that means is that people’s wages and incomes, even after adjusting for inflation, have increased faster than the cost of living. What happens when the wealthiest 80% of Canadians experience a significant increase in their purchasing power and see, in real terms, gas prices remain stable but fluctuate slightly? We get an increase in the number of kilometres driven per person, an increase in household fuel consumption, an increase in average vehicle size and an increase in the number of vehicles per household. In the Montreal area, during that period, the number of motor vehicles grew faster than the population. I am not sure whether the 80% of people with bigger, gas-guzzling vehicles are the ones who should be given priority and given immediate relief through a gas tax measure, especially since it is unclear whether this measure would also support the energy transition. This is something we should discuss with witnesses in committee. We know that this is a government that has abdicated its climate responsibilities and abandoned its greenhouse gas reduction targets, so I am not sure whether the people in that 80% are the ones who should be receiving the most immediate assistance. The other 20% of people are struggling to make ends meet, are living paycheque to paycheque and may be dealing with unforeseen circumstances, such as a breakup or a move. Often those people have to have a car because they can no longer afford to live in major cities and urban centres, where housing has become very expensive. Even though the price of gas has remained relatively stable over time, when adjusted for inflation, these people are very vulnerable to fluctuations in gas prices. For a household that is struggling to make ends meet, it is a big deal when gas goes from $1.68 a litre to $1.75. It might mean skipping meals, making the kids do without, not buying as many clothes or cutting back spending on vacations, education or school supplies. That is the issue. That once again brings us back to the question of whether this measure is helping those who really need it. This measure benefits 100% of people who use gasoline, including the Conservative members who pull into the parking lot in trucks 10 times bigger than my car. The government is spending money on everyone to help the 20% of people who really need it. We need to rethink this approach. Would a targeted transfer not be more appropriate? I know that the Minister of Finance increased the GST credit, which was good. Nobody took issue with that last winter or last spring. He changed the name. I do not remember what he called it, but the words “Canada Strong” must be in there somewhere because that is what they call everything. He bumped up the benefit that goes to these people, the folks who need it most. This transfer payment, this GST credit—the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, I believe it is called—is income-tested and adjusted based on family size according to the same criteria as those used to calculate family benefits, making it possible to direct support to the people who need it. What does that mean? It means that with $1 of public money, we can help someone in need five times over. I think this is a conversation we need to have. When someone goes to a gas station, they take money out of their pocket and pay for a litre of gas. There are two ways to help: either increase the amount of money in their pocket, or bring down the price of gas—or at least keep the increase in check. I do not know what kind of reasoning led the government to conclude that the only way to help the poorest people was simply to manipulate the rising price of a litre of gas. If the government believes that people need more help, I think that the grocery benefit might be a good option. It is worth discussing, especially since there is this myth floating around that a one-cent reduction in the excise tax translates to a one-cent reduction in gas prices. That is not true. When the excise tax is reduced, people along the distribution chain, like the distributor, the refiner or the gas stations themselves, pocket the difference. There is definitely no guarantee that it will end up in consumers’ pockets. Why is that? It is because consumer demand for this is often fixed. People have to get around, especially the 20% who are struggling the most and need help the most. These people have to get from point A to point B. They have to go to work. They have to go grocery shopping. These people need to fill up their tanks, and they will do it. They will fill up at $1.68, $1.72, $1.80 or $1.85 per litre. They will do it even if it means going without something else. Retailers know this, and the oil industry knows it. In economics, this is called inelastic demand. That means the retailer knows they can pocket the excise tax reduction because people are going to fill up anyway. That is what we are seeing. Gas stations have public relations teams. Of course, they lower prices for a day or two. Then people forget. After that, they blame Iran and raise the price. We are beginning to see studies on other countries that have used the current government’s method to put money in people’s pockets. David Byrne is a world-renowned researcher in industrial economics and, more specifically, in competition issues related to gas prices. That is his specialty. I do not know what led him to focus on that, but he has devoted his whole life to it. He started studying Australia’s data and realized that the mechanism that Canada is using was not actually benefiting the poorest people. The benefit was spread out through the entire chain. Does the government think retailers need help? Perhaps. Does it think gas stations need help? Perhaps. It obviously thinks oil companies need help. It spends its time giving them public money and subsidies. That is about the only thing it is interested in, other than travelling. The idea that debating the bill today means we are going to debate assistance that will end up in the pockets of the people who need it most has yet to be proven. We need empirical evidence and data. We need proof that that is the case. The Bloc Québécois has been calling for an increase in old age security for years. Seniors are often on fixed incomes. They too are dealing with inflation. They too have to travel. They too have problems, because taking public transit often becomes challenging with age. They need to go out to receive health care services. We were told that seniors 75 and over would receive an OAS increase, but not seniors aged 65 to 74. They are somehow a less important, second class of seniors. At the time, the Minister of Finance and his predecessor told us that there was no money for that; it was too expensive. As I recall, the cost was between $3.8 billion and $4 billion a year. There was no money to help out seniors. How much does today’s proposed measure cost? I looked at the assessment. It adds up to $5.3 billion. Today, we are talking about $5.3 billion that will probably fall seriously short of helping the people who need it the most. Furthermore, if the excise tax reduction does affect the cost of gas, it will also go to fill up people’s Hummers. Does this mean that the whole thing is bad? No, it means that it may not be targeted enough, that it may not be the only mechanism available, and that it is very expensive. It also means that the government has the money to do this. It also means that there is another way to use these funds. The issue is not whether we can afford $5.3 billion. We probably can. The question is, what are we forgoing? There are seniors tuning in today. They have been asked to tighten their belts ever since the Liberals took office. I mean when they really took office, back in 2015, because that is when it started. That is what seniors are being told. There are seniors in all our ridings. Madam Speaker, I know seniors in your riding who are telling me the same thing. In short, the government will be telling them that it actually can come up with $5.3 billion. It is important for us to do our jobs as parliamentarians. I am not making some grand speech today to say that everything is wonderful or terrible; rather, this is a call for cooler heads to prevail, a call to study this measure. It is a call to say that this does not actually need to be rushed through, that the government does not always have to forge full speed ahead, that it does not have to circumvent committees and that we do not need to cut corners on the parliamentary work we are being paid to do. We heard from witnesses when we first studied the bill. Many people said their piece. There is no unanimity in Quebec. I am not saying that everyone is against it, and I am not saying that everyone is in favour of it, but there is clearly a conversation in Quebec about the usefulness of this measure. There obviously is one. There were pre-budget consultations. The budgets come out in the fall. That was done in June. There was work done in August, with our colleagues on the Standing Committee on Finance. Some witnesses appeared. They were diligent people such as Luc Godbout, who holds the research chair in taxation and public finance at the Université de Sherbrooke. It has long been recognized that these folks see it as their duty to keep the public informed, and they take that duty very seriously. Luc Godbout said: ...in our opinion, the federal fuel excise tax exemption seems ill-advised from a public finance standpoint. It would be better not to extend this tax holiday and to maximize the chances of restoring the tax as it was and eventually indexing it. The other issue is that the gas tax, when adjusted for inflation, goes down if it is not indexed. Its impact on our wallets has been shrinking over the years. That is what has happened over time. Luc Godbout went on to say: I would remind you that a tax holiday of this nature benefits higher-income households more than low-income households. So in order to facilitate the reintroduction of the tax, consideration should probably be given to putting it into a community development fund or some other fund dedicated to that. I think it is important that these folks appear before the committee. It would be worth asking them what their analysis is based on. It would be worthwhile to hear from other parties who hold opposite views. If we question the measure, we are accused of being against Canada and against families and not wanting to help Canadians. I should hope that we are better than that in this Parliament. There are other people who appeared before the committee. In its pre-budget submission, Alliance Transit stated: Following the recent abolition of the carbon tax, this new tax break does nothing for families who do not own a vehicle or for those who have purchased electric vehicles, and there are many such families in Quebec and major cities across the country. This tax break is also costing Canada a significant amount of money, when those funds could be put to better use fighting poverty and maintaining our infrastructure, which is in a sorry state. This measure is unfair and short-sighted. Who are the members of Alliance Transit? I have a whole page of organizations that endorse its message, including Accès transports viables; Équiterre; the Réseau des centres d’expertise de mobilité, formerly known as the ACGDQ; the Regroupement national des conseils régionaux de l’environnement du Québec; Trajectoire Québec; Vivre en ville; Ville en vert; Vélo Québec; Nature Québec; and Les oubliés de l’autobus. That is a lot of people. What these people are saying is not based on ideology. It is based on facts. We know that. Young people learn this at university in their undergraduate studies. They are taught that just because consumers are theoretically getting a tax break does not mean that the person running the business and managing the tax break, which is the gas station in the case of the excise tax, is not going to pocket some of the money. What needs to happen? First, we need to have a broader conversation. The Liberals are here, and they are listening. Never again will the Liberals be able to say that increasing OAS for seniors is too expensive. Never again will they be able to tell us that this is a poorly targeted way to help because OAS decreases as income rises. It is more targeted. The Liberals need to tell us whether this increase is going to become permanent. Economist Milton Friedman once said that nothing is so permanent as a temporary policy. They did it once. Now they are doing it again. Will it still be temporary in a few months’ time if there is another war? Will it still be temporary if the situation in Iran keeps dragging on? How does this fit into the budget? How will the government inform taxpayers? It made an announcement in the middle of summer, tabled a notice of ways and means and is trying to rush it through. At what point will they renew the measure next time, and based on what criteria? Does the Minister of Finance simply lick his finger, hold it up to the wind and decide to renew it? Are there any criteria? What are they? Has anyone measured the impact? Do we know if there are any consequences? Has the government hired researchers to figure that out? What studies has the Department of Finance carried out since April to demonstrate that this measure will actually put money in the pockets of those who need it? I think this Parliament needs to consider legislation like this, especially since it is already in effect and is already subject to a notice of ways and means. We are not blocking it. This Parliament just needs to determine whether, under the current circumstances, this is the right way to invest taxpayers’ money.
