OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates Volume 151 No. 273 1st SESSION 44th PARLIAMENT Thursday, February 1, 2024 Speaker: The Honourable Greg Fergus HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES February 1, 2024 DEBATES No. 273 No. 273 N o 273 Volume 151 273 01 02 2024 2024/02/01 10:00:00 Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates House Of Commons 1 44

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayer

(1000) [ Translation ] Vacancy LaSalle—Émard—Verdun

The Speaker :

It is my duty to inform the House that a vacancy has occurred in the representation, namely Mr. Lametti, member for the electoral district of LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, by resignation effective Wednesday, January 31, 2024. Pursuant to paragraph 25(1)(

b) of the Parliament of Canada Act, I have addressed a warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a writ for the election of a member to fill this vacancy.

[ English ] Board of Internal Economy

The Speaker :

It is my duty to inform the House, for the purposes under the provisions of

section 50 of the Parliament of Canada Act, the following members have been appointed members of the Board of Internal Economy, namely: the Hon. Ruby Sahota, the member for Brampton North , in place of the Hon. Karina Gould, the member for Burlington , as a member of the King's Privy Council; and the Hon. Mona Fortier, the member for Ottawa—Vanier , in place of the Hon. Ruby Sahota, the member for Brampton North , as a representative of the government.

Routine Proceedings Routine Proceedings

[ English ] Finance

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), and consistent with the policy on the tabling of treaties in Parliament, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, a treaty entitled “Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Bank for International Settlements on the Establishment of an Office of the Bank of Canada for the Operation of the BIS Innovation Hub Toronto Centre”, done at Ottawa on January 31.

Criminal Code

Hon. Mark Holland (Minister of Health, Lib.)

Bill C-62. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-62,

An Act to amend

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2 . (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

(1005) Petitions Natural Health Products

Mr. Brad Vis (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of constituents in Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon today to present two very important petitions. The first petition is in relation to Red Tape Awareness Week and the attack by the Canadian government on producers and manufacturers of natural health supplements. Constituents in my riding are calling on the government to stop over-regulating and let Canadians use the natural health supplements and Chinese medicine that are a very big part of their daily regimen.

Needle Exchange Program

Mr. Brad Vis (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I am presenting today comes from the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers in Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, and it relates to the needle exchange program the government is about to implement in federal institutions. Drugs and drug paraphernalia are considered contraband in prison, yet the government is forcing our correctional officers to simply turn a blind eye and allow dangerous drugs to be used inside our institutions.

These correctional officers are calling on the government to cancel the prison needle exchange program, to stop permitting the use of illegal drugs in Canadian prisons and to focus their efforts on helping inmates recover from their addictions in a compassionate way.

Justice

Mr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by Canadians calling on the government to take all necessary measures at its disposal to overturn an unjust decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that struck down a just law passed by the Harper government. The law would apply consecutive parole ineligibility periods to criminals convicted of multiple murders, taking into account each life lost. The petitioners call for the government, among other things, to invoke the notwithstanding clause to override this decision.

Basic Income Guarantee Program

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP) :

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise and present this petition on behalf of folks who note that a guaranteed livable income would, first of all, establish an income floor below which no Canadian could fall and reflect regional differences in the cost of living. The petitioners go on to note that it could replace the current patchwork of federal and provincial income assistance programs with a single, universal cash benefit. They note that it could be administered through the existing tax system and require no means testing, thereby dramatically reducing federal and provincial administrative costs.

The petitioners go on to note that it could reduce poverty, thereby reducing the demand on social services, law enforcement and health care, resulting in additional cost savings for government and taxpayers. Most importantly, it would provide a financial safety net for all Canadians, especially through major economic shifts, pandemics, natural disasters and industry automation. As a result, the petitioners call on the Government of Canada to implement a guaranteed livable income for all Canadians.

Religious Heritage

Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present, which says that preserving the petitioners' Christian heritage, rooted in the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is vital. They seek to celebrate December as Christian heritage month annually, promoting love, equality and peace. They say that their Christian foundations, recognized globally, shape their identity. The undersigned residents of Canada call upon the Government of Canada to celebrate December as Christian heritage month annually.

Ukraine

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by constituents who are calling upon all members of Parliament to actually stand and support the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. The petitioners recognize that it is coming up for debate, and they hope that every member of every political party will in fact vote in favour of this particular trade agreement.

Freedom of Expression

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I have four petitions to present today. The first one specifically calls to the attention that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,

section 2(b), protects freedom of thought, belief and opinion. It further goes on to discuss how the Canadian Bill of Rights,

section 1, protects the rights of individual life, liberty and personal security, and enjoyment of property. The undersigned members of my community are calling on the Prime Minister and Minister of Justice to protect Canadians' right to advocate without fear of reprisal for Palestinians to live in peace and security.

(1010) Climate Change

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, the second petition actually had good news, because the government announced measures with respect to it towards the end of last year. This petition specifically talks about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and says that we have been warned repeatedly that rising temperatures over the next two decades will bring widespread devastation and extreme weather, that addressing climate change requires a drastic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and that, in 2021, the federal government committed to cap and cut emissions from the oil and gas sector to achieve net zero by 2050.

The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to move forward immediately with bold emissions caps for the oil and gas sector that are comprehensive in scope and realistic in achieving the necessary targets that Canada has. Mr. Speaker, I have presented a lot of petitions in my day. I have never had the Leader of the Opposition or the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman heckle me while doing that. I will just jump straight to the petition.

Ukraine

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, this petition is meant for the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman . This comes—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Speaker :

I will ask the hon. member to rephrase his statement so that we could just talk about the subject of the petition. As members know, the Speaker has made a ruling in this respect, not to make comments about where these have come from. Will the hon. member please withdraw his comment?

Mr. Mark Gerretsen :

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the comment singling out the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman . This petition calls on all members of Parliament. It states that, back in September 2022—

Mr. Bob Zimmer :

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to consistency. The member just did again what you asked him to withdraw about a minute before. This was a big deal this week with my colleague from Battle River—Crowfoot . Indeed, Mr. Speaker, you made me apologize for doing something similar; you are not being consistent. This has been the accusation all along. You pick your battles, and we lose most of them, Mr. Speaker, while the Liberals are allowed to just keep doing what they are doing. I wish you would be consistent, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker :

I would like to thank the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies for raising this point. Indeed, as the Chair had made clear in a ruling late on Monday, the idea is an apology and a withdrawal. Members are first asked to withdraw a comment, and that opportunity was offered to the member for Battle River—Crowfoot . It went to a second round, involving an apology and a withdrawal. I asked the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands to withdraw the comment, and he did. If he had—

Some hon. members: And then he did it again.

(1015) The Speaker :

Members will forgive me if I review Hansard to see if that is the case. I was occupied with another issue. However, I am glad that the member for Kingston and the Islands withdrew the comment. We do not want disorder in this House. I hope, given the current controversy, that he will stay far away from causing disorder.

Mr. Mark Gerretsen :

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just so there is no ambiguity on this, I apologize and withdraw that comment. Now, what I was saying was that this petition specifically calls on all members of Parliament to immediately and swiftly enact Bill C-57 , which would put into law the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. This would assist Ukraine in rebuilding after it defeats the illegal invasion of Vladimir Putin. It actually says in the petition that misinformation regarding the effect of Canada's carbon pricing scheme on this agreement has been widely debunked.

The petition states, therefore, that the undersigned citizens of Canada call upon the House of Commons and all parliamentarians to reaffirm our unwavering commitment to Ukraine by swiftly adopting the updated free trade agreement.

Food Security

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, the last petition that I have today comes specifically from members of the Nexus and Bayridge Secondary School community in my riding. The petitioners are calling upon the Minister of Finance ; the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development ; and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to prioritize a national school food program through budget 2024 for implementation by the fall of 2024. As petitioners specifically draw to the attention of the government and the House, Statistics Canada indicates that one in four children in Canada lives in a food-insecure household—

An hon. member: Oh, oh!

Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is heckling me. I am just trying to present this on behalf of my constituents. Finally, the petitioners state that school food programs are recognized around the world as essential to the health, well-being and education of students, with over 388 million children in at least 168 countries receiving free and subsidized school meals. I really want to thank the community at Bayridge Secondary School in my riding of Kingston and the Islands for—

The Speaker :

The member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies is rising on a point of order, but he is not in his seat. I will just give him a bit of time to go to his seat.

Mr. Bob Zimmer :

Mr. Speaker, a bit of the ruling yesterday was with respect to how long these were taking, and we were told that there are tight rules about how petitions should be presented in this House. We were not to mention members, and it was supposed to be a brief statement, which I had brought to you, Mr. Speaker. Where is the brief statement in this case? Again, we are seeking consistency. I wish you, Mr. Speaker, would be consistent in this case.

The Speaker :

I thank the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies. What was also mentioned in that ruling is that, although the Standing Orders have been very clear about terms, if we were to strictly interpret that, it has been the habit of this House through all Chairs and people who have assumed the presidency here to allow a bit of latitude in terms of the length. However, we ask members not to offer opinions as to whether they agree, but just present the points of view of the petitioners to the House. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

Mr. Mark Gerretsen :

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion to that petition, I was just saying that I wanted to thank the incredible school community of Bayridge Secondary School in Kingston for its advocacy on this issue and for using its voice in Parliament.

The Environment

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) :

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise here today on the traditional territories of the Algonquin Anishinabe nation. To them, we say “ meegwetch ”. I am presenting a petition that speaks to an issue that has seized this House in a number of different ways in terms of pending legislation. The petitioners are asking the government to take account of the degradation of Canada's waterways and watersheds. The current laws do not adequately protect Canada's waterways and watersheds from irresponsible industrial practice.

The petitioners call on Canada to update our water laws to ensure that no industry or single corporation can take precedence over the health of Canada's waterways and watersheds and, by extension, over the health of the people of Canada and the very species that also rely on the health of these waterways. We must ensure that Canada's water laws are updated under the guidance of professionals and specialists in the field of water conservation.

(1020) Questions on the Order Paper

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time.

The Speaker: Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Government Orders Business of Supply

[ Translation ] Business of Supply Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax

Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Leader of the Opposition, CPC)

Motion moved:

That, given that the carbon tax has proven to be a tax plan, not an environmental plan, the House call on the Liberal government to cancel the April 1, 2024, carbon tax increase.

He said: Mr. Speaker, after eight years in office, this Prime Minister is not worth the cost. That is why Canada needs a common-sense government that will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop crime. [ English ] After eight years, the Prime Minister is not worth the cost. That is why we need a common-sense Conservative government that will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. Today, I rise on the first of those Conservative priorities.

I think members across the way are becoming more and more convinced that we might be onto something with this four-point plan to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. Why do we want to axe the tax? Let me start with yesterday's debate with the Prime Minister . I highlighted, once again, the Medeiros family farm. It produces mushrooms for all the city of Ottawa but has been facing tens of thousands of dollars in monthly carbon tax bills alone.

Now, the Prime Minister claimed that I told the farm to stand on its own two feet when it was trying to bring natural gas to the farm and that I could not possibly understand what he was referring to because, of course, I helped the farm. I dug up the quote, and I said, in response to high energy prices, that the goal was “to find a commercially viable way that this kind of...project”, natural gas for farms, “can stand on its own two feet, pay for itself and create some jobs”.

From that moment, I went to Enbridge, which, being a large multinational pipeline company, had been hard for an individual farmer to contact on the phone. I got the executives on the phone. I told them the pipeline was needed to take gas to the mushroom farm in order to generate the steam and the other power that is needed to produce mushrooms. Ultimately, the project got done without any tax dollars and paid for itself, because natural gas is significantly cheaper and less polluting than propane and oil.

That is an example of how we can do great things for our farm families without costing Canadian taxpayers money and without creating new federal bureaucracy. The Prime Minister's comments do speak to his patronizing view of all Canadians. He believes that Canadians can never stand on their own two feet. In fact, the only reason Canadians are struggling to do so is that he is on their backs. It is like the Canadian people are carrying a backpack, and he comes along and asks: “Can I help you with that?

It looks heavy.” He puts the backpack on his shoulders, and then he piggybacks on the Canadian who was carrying it in the first place. Now, they are not only carrying the bag but also carrying him. In this case, the analogy refers to his carbon tax. That same family farm, which was thriving through intelligent investments, including in natural gas that he and his radical environment minister want to eliminate, was thriving and employing dozens of people in our community.

Now, it is paying carbon taxes of $10,000 to $20,000 per month, an amount the Prime Minister wants to quadruple to 61¢ a litre and place an equivalent charge on natural gas. On April 1, the Prime Minister, with the full support of the NDP, intends to raise the carbon tax by 23%. This is at a time when Canadians cannot afford to eat. Moments ago, the Prime Minister had one of his parliamentary secretaries, the member for Kingston and the Islands , get up and say that one in four school children is not able to eat. That is quite an admission by a government that has been in power for eight years.

It used it as a justification to create a new federal bureaucracy. The Liberals say that it is a school food program, except there is no food in the program. In fact, it is not even in the schools; it is in Ottawa. In downtown Ottawa, the Liberals propose to create a series of meetings, bureaucracies and organizations that will collect yet more money from the rest of the population in order to talk about creating agreements and frameworks for discussions and consultations about an eventual program that supposedly will feed the one in four kids who is hungry because the government is taxing their food.

Why not skip all those steps and just stop taxing the food?

(1025) Like everything the Prime Minister does, he doubles housing costs, and then he says we need a new government housing program. He doubles the number of shootings in Canada with his catch-and-release policies, and then he says we need new government programs to combat the gun violence the government unleashed with its Criminal Code changes. He causes these problems, and then the problems he causes are a pretext for him to have more power and more money. We all know that the Prime Minister is not the solution. He is the problem.

The last thing we need is to take more money from our working-class families, our farmers and our seniors and to put it in his hands. We stand in the House of Commons as the only party that opposes the carbon tax hike. The NDP has betrayed working-class people in places like Vancouver Island, northern British Columbia and northern Ontario where its constituents rely on pickup trucks, where the rural people and the farmers use energy to power their combines, their tractors, their farm drying equipment and their barns. The NDP raises taxes on all those people. The NDP wants to shut down Canada's resource sector.

Just the other day, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie cheered at the prospect of shutting down the entire natural gas economy, which would devastate the people in the NDP riding of Skeena—Bulkley Valley. What we have is a radical agenda by the Prime Minister and his NDP allies, coalition partners, to quadruple the carbon tax to 61¢ a litre, all while shutting down our resource sector so that we can import from dirty dictatorships. What we have from the Prime Minister is a pro-Russia energy policy that shuts down our energy industry to give more and more business to power Putin's war machine.

All of that is supported by the NDP. These facts build a firm and final case that only common-sense Conservatives stand on the side of working-class people, who need their pickup trucks to do their jobs and to build the country; seniors, who need to heat their homes in Edmonton in -50°C weather; single mothers, who are putting water in their children's milk because the cost of produce has risen under the Liberal-NDP carbon tax; children, one in four of whom, by the government's own admission today, are going hungry in our schools.

This is the misery that Canadians are living after eight years of the Prime Minister . The definition of insanity is when one does the same thing over and over again and expects a different result. Raising taxes and shutting down industries has sent two million people to the food bank. It has doubled housing costs. It has led to homeless encampments that we never had before in cities across this country. There are 30 homeless encampments in Halifax alone.

There is the re-emergence of illnesses that were long ago banished, like scurvy, because people have become malnourished under the Prime Minister 's impoverishing policies. We, as common-sense Conservatives, will undo this damage. We will axe the tax to lower the cost of gas, heat and groceries so that our seniors can heat their homes, and our families can feed their kids. Our farmers can, once again, repatriate production of food to this country and can use the best environmental stewardship on planet earth.

Our energy and resource companies can harvest the cornucopia of bounty that our country has beneath its feet and can use those resources to lift the world out of poverty in the most environmentally friendly way that could possibly be imagined. We are the best. Our workers are the best. Our inventors are the best. Our businesses are the best. If we could get the government out of the way, then we could have the best.

We will have that, and we will do it not by big powerful government dictating from on high, but we will do it by the great Canadian people standing on their own two feet and by the common sense of the common people united for our common home: their home, my home, our home. Let us bring it home.

(1030) [ Translation ]

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ) :

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives make it sound like using tax policies to fight climate change is never a good idea. We disagree with some of the measures the Liberals have in place because we think they are unnecessary. I am talking about measures like the tax credit for carbon capture, utilization and storage, the clean tech tax credit and the hydrogen tax credit. I would like the member for Carleton to tell us about his vision for these tax credits. Do they actually work, or does using tax policy to fight climate change only work when the money does not end up lining the pockets of oil companies?

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

Mr. Speaker, first of all, we are not lining any industry's pockets. Furthermore, our energy industry is capable of increasing its own revenues in a free market. It is the barriers put in place by the Liberal government that prevent these companies from doing business properly. It is not that we do not want to subsidize anything. Rather, we want to allow free enterprise. When it comes to green energy, we have to green-light green projects. We have to green-light hydroelectric dams in Quebec, not tie them up for years, as the federal government wants to do with the Bloc Québécois's support.

We are the ones who want to allow lithium, cobalt and graphite mines to open quickly, within 18 months instead of 18 years, so we can produce electric batteries here in Canada. We are the ones who want to allow nuclear energy that will provide zero-emission electricity. We are going to green-light green projects.

[ English ]

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, last week the Leader of the Opposition referred to two Quebec mayors as being incompetent. I wonder whether he has had an opportunity to reflect on that and whether he still feels that way, or whether he would like to apologize for having called two mayors in Quebec incompetent.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely false. I referred to far more than two mayors as being incompetent. The former mayor of Vancouver, who made it $1.3 million in government costs for every newly built home, is incompetent. The current mayor and council in Toronto, bringing in a 10% tax increase on their people, are absolutely incompetent. There are many competent mayors across the country: in Victoriaville, in Saguenay, in Trois-Rivières and in other places. The former mayor of Langley was very competent. They got out of the way and accelerated construction.

Conservatives believe that we should reward those mayors and councils that get out of the way and let builders build. Let us incentivize local municipalities to speed up and lower the cost of construction so that we can put roofs overhead after the Prime Minister doubled housing costs.

Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have been witnessing flooding, extreme weather and droughts, and experts have been clear that what is raising costs on food is far more the climate crisis than carbon pricing. Over a decade ago, when the Leader of the Opposition was a minister, the Harper government cut the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, which collected information on the costs of the climate crisis. He says he wants to cut taxes, but we know he wants to cut child care and the school food programs. He wants to cut the experts who would—

(1035) The Speaker :

The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre is rising on a point of order.

Ms. Leah Gazan :

Mr. Speaker, I know it is really hard for the Conservative men to control their toxic masculinity. They do support “men gotta go their own way”. My colleague is trying to ask a question, and—

The Speaker :

I am going to ask all members to please allow questions to be asked and comments to be made without interruption so we can hear. The hon. member for Victoria.

Ms. Laurel Collins :

Mr. Speaker, he says he wants to cut taxes, but what we know is he wants to cut child care. He wants to cut school food programs, and he wants to cut the experts who will refute his misinformation.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let us go through this point by point. She says that natural disasters would be stopped by a carbon tax. The carbon tax has now been in place for five years, and, as she points out, these events continue to happen. Clearly the carbon tax is not solving the problem; in fact, it has not even reduced emissions. The government has missed its own targets in all but one year, and that was when we were locked down for COVID. Its own environment commissioner says the government will not hit its targets by 2030.

Second, she just revealed what she wants to spend money on: a national round table of a bunch of activists, lobbyists and bureaucrats in Ottawa. She refers to a food program she claims I want to cut; there is no food program. What the government has is a program to bring a bunch of bureaucrats and activists to Ottawa to talk about food. This is exactly the kind of waste and mismanagement we will get rid of so we can bring home affordable food.

Mr. Eric Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to follow up on our leader 's speech about our opposition day motion today, which is calling on the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois to support common sense. After eight years of the Prime Minister and the NDP-Liberal coalition, Canadians by the millions are getting increasingly frustrated at the out-of-control tax increases under the Prime Minister. Let me give an example: $27,571.29 on an invoice from Rutters Elevators. I was speaking to Michael Aube in Chesterville yesterday and again this morning.

That is the carbon tax bill, the line on the bill, for drying at their elevator for one farm in Chesterville, Ontario, last year. Canadians believe that this is getting absurd. The worst is yet to come. On April 1, the carbon tax is going to increase by 23%, and the Prime Minister and the NDP, coalition partners together, are going to quadruple the carbon tax in the coming years.

This means Canadians are dumbfounded at the fact that the Prime Minister, the finance minister and their government believe that putting a $100,000 carbon tax bill for one farm alone is not going to increase the cost of food and inflation in this country. Nobody believes it. Again, just this week, the finance minister and Deputy Prime Minister went out and said that the carbon tax is revenue-neutral. It is no wonder we cannot balance the budget in this country under their watch. They cannot do basic math and economics to understand that.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed the impact the tax is going to have on farmers; $1 billion in carbon taxes is coming under the current plan and the continued carbon tax increases to farmers in the coming years. Nobody believes that one can add a billion dollars in taxes to the bills of Canadian farmers and not expect food prices, the cost of living and the cost of doing business in this country to go up. That does not even include the carbon tax on trucking. In my family, I am proud of my father, Ed, now happily retired from JED Express in South Mountain, Ontario.

We were in the trucking business for years. One cannot put 61¢ a litre on the price of gas in the transportation business and not have it drive up the cost of food and of everything that Canadians buy. Everything has to be shipped and trucked in this country, driving up the cost. Canadians are tired and have had enough of these tax increases. We have our common-sense Conservative motion here today that builds on our four priorities: axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.

That is resonating because it is what Conservative members heard in every part of the country once again over the Christmas recess and holidays, out and about in our community. Let us talk about being out of touch. I want people to picture this for a second if they can. We went home to our ridings, to Christmas open houses and to public events, and we were dropping by. I want people to picture a Liberal MP and just how out of touch they are. Apparently they went home and went to the local Tim Hortons coffee shop to grab a coffee and shoot the breeze with people in Avalon, rural Newfoundland.

They came back to Ottawa and, after weeks of feedback, the Prime Minister had a great idea this week. They said they heard the message about the carbon tax loud and clear: People do not like the name of it. The Liberals' idea, after going back and hearing from Canadians, apparently, was that it was not the fact that the carbon tax was going to quadruple. It was not the fact that it is driving up costs, and it was not the fact that we are adding a billion dollars in taxes to Canadian farmers in the coming years. It was the fact that maybe Canadians just do not like the name of the carbon tax.

The Liberals are out of touch. On this side of the aisle, the motion is clear. On April 1 the carbon tax is going to increase by 23% as part of the plan to quadruple it from its current rate. If Canadians think it is bad now, just wait until, year after year, it gets to the totals in their plans. They may not even be done after that.

(1040) There is no part of this country that is not impacted negatively by the failed carbon tax, and it has been a failure. Emissions are not going down; they are going up. The cost of living and the cost of doing business are skyrocketing at rates like we have never seen before. I want to point out a couple of things in this country. Just this week, CTV News had an

article headline that said, “40 per cent of N.S. households struggle to pay their electricity bill”. The Liberals still plan to quadruple the carbon tax and drive bills up even further. The part of the country I would like to highlight today are the good people in northern Ontario, who, for years, have overwhelmingly elected Liberal and NDP MPs to go to Ottawa. They are now seeing week by week, month by month, and budget by budget, just how out of touch their Liberal and NDP MPs have been. It was very interesting here, and I want to call out the hypocrisy particularly of the NDP members.

They always talk a big, tough game. They yell and do all their things, whether it be at committee or in question period, and they always claim they have these great ideas. They vote and do all these things that make it look like they are fighting on behalf of folks, particularly in northern Ontario. At the end of the day, when the budget comes, the NDP are just as complicit as the Liberals in driving up the carbon tax.

On hypocrisy, I have to call out the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing , an NDP MP who goes on record about the carbon tax and says, “I think it's a black eye for the Liberals for what they have done.” Excuse me to the NDP members, but they have voted with the Liberals every single time, and they are going to quadruple it. The only reason Canadians do not have a choice right now is that the NDP keeps propping the Liberals up time and time again. I think what is important here is that the NDP members say one thing back in their ridings, but then they come to Ottawa and vote a completely different way.

What we say is that rent is up, gas is up, the carbon tax is up, housing costs are up, and for the NDP, time is up. Canadians, particularly in northern Ontario, are not buying it anymore. One of my favourite parts is the NDP member for Timmins—James Bay , who gets triggered. I am glad he is here this morning. I am glad that at the—

(1045) The Deputy Speaker :

We cannot refer to whether someone is here or not. I think the hon. member knows that. The hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.

Mr. Eric Duncan :

Mr. Speaker, what I can say is that when I visited Timmins last year, and when our Conservative leader has visited Timmins time and time again, the constituents said they never see or hear from their NDP MP. They say just how out of touch the NDP has become. It has sold out working families, particularly in northern Ontario, in Timmins—James Bay , and continues to prop up the Liberal government. It was just in the news last week, in The Daily Press, up in Timmins. The airport manager of the Victor M. Power Airport said he has a serious concern about the rising cost of living in this country. I am going to quote him. He said:

We’re burning hundreds and hundreds of litres of fuel and that price is going to go up a huge amount. That cost gets passed onto the traveling public right out of Timmins. So my budget is going to go through the roof in the next couple of years.

My focus is running the business of the airport. I need to do something to make sure...people can afford to fly, and not have [to pay] $800 seats to [go to] Toronto.

That is because carbon taxes are driving up the cost of living in northern Ontario. It gets cold in northern Ontario. To heat their homes, people need to have heat. They should not be penalized for doing that. They have to drive. If they are going from Timmins to Sault Ste. Marie, Sudbury, North Bay, Kapuskasing, Hearst or any point in between, there is no subway. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance just hops on the subway. I have been up there a few times in northern Ontario. I found a Subway restaurant, but I have not found the subway that she suggests people in northern Ontario can just use.

The motion we have is clear. Our position, as Canadian Conservatives, is clear as well. We will axe the tax entirely, on everything, for good. The Prime Minister is playing games with Bill C-234 and giving an exemption or carve-out to farmers to save $1 billion. They will not go for that. They are playing games in the Senate and now here in the House. They now have the opportunity to go on the record. They do not have to increase the carbon tax again on April 1. It is time to cancel the increase and give Canadians some much-needed relief after eight years of the Prime Minister and his NDP partners.

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives, and that member in particular, want to talk a lot about the price on pollution but do not want to talk about the other things the government is doing, in particular for the agriculture sector. There is one riding in Ontario that receives $6.8 million through the agriculture sector emissions reductions and clean-tech funding. This is money that is actually given to the agricultural sector to help it reduce its emissions and find clean technology. Do members know whose riding receives $6.8 million a year from the federal government for that? It is that member's riding.

That member's riding receives $6.8 million of federal money to help the agricultural industry move away from emissions and in the direction of clean tech. I am wondering, in the interest of axing everything, whether the member would comment on whether the Conservative government would axe this clean-tech funding and this $6.8 million to his riding.

Mr. Eric Duncan :

Mr. Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands talks about six-point-some million dollars. I just went through and told him that the millions of dollars in carbon tax that is being paid by farmers is going to be quadrupled in the coming years. They are getting tax increases like they have never seen before. A billion dollars is what Canadian farmers are going to pay in the coming years. The arrogance of the Liberal government, and that Liberal member in particular, says that the government knows best. It is driving up their taxes and giving it back. We have a common-sense solution.

It is to get green technology red tape out of the way, like on tidal energy in New Brunswick. There are numerous hydroelectric projects in Quebec that are being stalled because of federal red tape. The Liberals' answer is to tax them, jack up their taxes and carbon tax, and try to cut a cheque for some of it back. The provinces do not believe it. It has failed, and it is not working. I encourage the member to come and visit a farmer in Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry; he would get an earful about the Liberal record on everything.

Mr. Blake Desjarlais (Edmonton Griesbach, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, I want to preface my question with how disappointed I am in the member opposite. The member speaks about being out of touch, while we see, in my home province of Alberta, children and trans kids being attacked. That member has the power and should have the courage to stand in this place and condemn that violence. Will the member now, as I give him the opportunity, stand to protect trans rights in this country and stand against Conservative premiers who, as we speak, are attacking children's rights? Will he have the courage to do it now?

(1050) Mr. Eric Duncan :

Mr. Speaker, that does not have anything to do with the motion and the debate here at hand on the carbon tax, but I will say, as a proud gay man, that he should not question my integrity or my commitment on anything. I have been proud, as an example, to stand up to end the discriminatory blood ban that the NDP and Liberals propped up for far too long. I will not take any lessons from him trying to lecture me about anything. Back to the matter at hand, talking about out of touch and talking about aloof, we have that member from Edmonton.

Temperatures in Edmonton reached -50°C or -45°C only about a week or two ago, and that member does not like the inconvenience of it. He is going to have to go doorknocking in the next election and explain to people in Edmonton why he wants to quadruple the carbon tax and their home heating bill when temperatures hit -45°C. The reason people are using food banks, the reason people are struggling, the reason housing costs and the economy are out of control is the constant tax increases that the member keeps voting for. I know he does not like talking about it, but it is about time he smartened up and did.

Mr. Brad Vis (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, last week a dairy farmer in my riding called me. He was calling in reference to one of these federal government grants, and he said that it is almost as if the government is forcing him to spend money on something. He said that what the Liberal government does not seem to understand is that he wants to lower his input costs and make his barn as efficient as possible, but he does not want to be cajoled into a single program by a bureaucrat in Ottawa about what he should be doing with his business and his family farm.

Maybe the member from Ontario can comment on what a Conservative approach would be to letting farmers produce the food we need and not letting government get in the way all the time.

Mr. Eric Duncan :

Mr. Speaker, I agree wholeheartedly. I hear the same thing from farmers. I mentioned before about the elevators, about Rutters Elevators in Chesterville. I talked to Mike Aube about the carbon tax bill and the massive increases they are seeing there. Mike was telling me that they want to build greenhouses and expand their operations, but whenever they see their bills go up by the hundreds and thousands of dollars and look at their overall cash flow, it creates a serious problem. The increases they are forced to pass on to everybody else do not allow new projects for Canadian-grown food to be expanded. Chesterville is a perfect example.

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Lac-Saint-Louis . Here we are once again, talking about the same motion based on the same red herrings we have seen time and time again coming from the Conservatives. I listened to the question from the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon just moments ago, where he tried to imply that the federal funding toward the reduction of emissions and toward clean technology was only one particular program. It is clear the member has no concept whatsoever of what the federal government is doing for farmers, in that there are so many programs.

When I said $6.8 million, I was giving the total number over a whole vast array of various different programs. It is not a single program, but it is not new and not unique to me to hear Conservatives talking like this. It is what they want to do repeatedly. They want to take an issue like global inflation and try to apply it to Canada and say that it is a problem only in Canada. They say that this is a problem that has been created by the price on pollution, which is ludicrous. We know, according to the Governor of the Bank of Canada, that the price on pollution contributes to 0.15% as it relates to inflation.

It is literally negligible and could be chalked up to a rounding error, yet Conservatives jump on it as though this is what is making life unaffordable for many Canadians right now. They do not want to talk about the realities. They do not want to talk about what is actually going on throughout the world and how Canada is positioning itself to be at the forefront when it comes to these new technologies. I heard the Leader of the Opposition talk about building car batteries in Canada.

Is he not aware that the member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington , one of his Conservative members, had the largest investment, not in Canada but in North America, for building batteries to go into vehicles? That is all happening a 20-kilometre drive from where I live, in Hastings—Lennox and Addington. This is setting the course for the future in terms of the industry being at the forefront, so that we will not be importing technology and so that we will be the ones actually creating the technology and developing those products right here in Canada.

That particular facility, Umicore, will produce 800,000 batteries to go into vehicles each and every year. It is a multi-billion dollar investment from Umicore, not just into Canada but into Ontario, into Hastings—Lennox and Addington, into the Kingston region. This is huge, but it is only one example. We are well aware of Stellantis and the other various different players emerging in Canada as it relates to environmental technologies and the green technologies of tomorrow. People look toward Canada.

Companies and businesses look toward Canada because they know we have the resources and the political will to push toward this new and emerging technology. This is why we are seeing people come and invest here. While I am on the topic, do members know why Umicore even picked Ontario?

The president of Umicore said, in his press conference, and the member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington was there with a big smile on her face when it happened at Queen's University two summers ago, that Umicore chose Ontario because it is producing environmentally sustainable products and it wants to know that what goes into those products is environmentally sustainable. A vast majority of the resources that go into building those batteries comes from electricity, and he recognized that Ontario does not burn coal to produce electricity. That is thanks to a previous provincial Liberal government, by the way.

He recognized that Ontario has taken great strides toward ensuring that we have renewable, sustainable electricity produced in a responsible way. That is why companies are choosing to invest in Canada. That is why they are choosing Ontario. That is why they are choosing Hastings—Lennox and Addington. The mayors in the surrounding area, including in Kingston, are thrilled about this. The city councils are thrilled about this. The economic opportunities that are being produced as a result of investments like this, because of the initiatives of the Liberal government, will last for generations, quite frankly.

(1055) I get real kick out of it when I see Conservative members being super excited about these things when they are back in there ridings, but when they come to the House of Commons, they toe the line of the Leader of the Opposition , that the only solution forward is to go back to burning as much fossil fuel as we possibly can. When we talk about the price on pollution and what Conservatives are proposing today, it is really important that we actually talk about what they are proposing. They talk about axing a lot of stuff. What they are going to be axing are rebates to families.

It might not be the families that they are interested in, because lower-income families receive more through the climate action incentive rebate than higher-income families. However, the reality is that what Conservatives would be axing, is a family of four, in the spring of this year, will receive $244 for one quarter; in Manitoba, $264; in Saskatchewan, $340. The same family living in Alberta, for one quarter, would receive, and currently receives, $386.

We hear the Conservatives routinely say that we are going to double it or triple the tax, but of course they do not tell us the timeline, because some of the timelines are a decade out. However, what they forget to say is that the rebate doubles and triples as well. We recognize that in order to transition away from fossil fuels, which I want to do, and I know many members of the House of Commons, the Canadian population and a majority of our constituents want to do, we have to incentivize people to make change.

In an economic model that is built on capitalism, that is built on supply and demand, the way to incentivize people is by putting a price on things on which we want to change behaviour. We would think that the Conservatives before anybody else would know this. The same thing happens with taxes on tobacco. The same thing happens with taxes on other products where we are looking to change behaviour.

However, the key difference to any other tax, and what the Conservatives never want to mention, is that in order to accomplish this, but still be reasonable for families to absorb those prices, is to return all the money to them. The natural question is, “Why do it in the first place?” I just assumed that Conservatives could understand how market mechanisms work to incentivize and change behaviour in the market. Apparently they do not. The good news is that we know that it is working, and we are starting to see it.

The projections are showing that by 2030 over a third of the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions will be attributed specifically to pricing pollution. We are not the only ones that price pollution. Countless jurisdictions throughout the world price pollution. Ukraine prices pollution. Ukraine, a country that is literally at war right now, prices pollution, and it has since 2011. It was the only way that the European economy was going to let it participate in the economy.

Most, if not all, European economies have a price on pollution in one form or another, whether that is a direct price, or cap and trade or one of the various different models. The Conservatives never miss an opportunity to try to conflate and confuse Canadians as to what the realities are when it comes to the price on pollution and how it works, generally speaking.

Once again, we find ourselves in a position where the Conservatives have brought forward motion after motion on the same issue, not just the issue of pricing pollution and the fact that they are against it but on an issue that they ran on in the last election. All Conservative members in here, whether they say they agree with it or not, ran under a policy that included pricing pollution. Now they have such buyers' remorse over their last leader that they have used just about every opposition day in this session of Parliament on this issue. I am looking forward to answering questions that my colleagues might have.

I am quite certain that this is not the last time the Conservatives will bring forward this motion, but it is certainly a policy that will be to the benefit of our environment in the future.

(1100) Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) :

Mr. Speaker, it is my first opportunity to rise today to explain the many reasons why the Green Party will be voting against today's opposition motion, but I would like to ask my friend from Kingston and the Islands to comment on this. We had an earlier exchange about whether enforcing the carbon tax or raising the carbon tax could stop fires and floods. The answer from science is clear that it cannot. We cannot turn back what has happened to the atmosphere with respect to atmospheric chemistry and physics, but we can avoid runaway global warming, the kind that self-accelerates and becomes unstoppable.

We must not stoke the furnace further on future warming to destroy the lives of our children, which is why we need carbon pricing, and we need more to reduce emissions much more quickly. Does my hon. colleague have any comments on that?

Mr. Mark Gerretsen :

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with my colleague from the Green Party on this. The reality is that this false narrative or red herring reminds me a lot of the one that we hear quite often from Conservatives about Canada's fossil fuels being the cleanest in the world, as though that is some reason why we should not seek to do better. Rather than doing something about a problem, their solution is to exploit our resources because they are slightly more cleaner than other jurisdictions. We know that what it really comes down to is that Canada is a leader. We are a G7 country.

We benefited from the industrial revolution immensely. It is to the benefit of every citizen in our country, like all our other G7 partners. We have an obligation to the world to be at the forefront, to lead the charge in terms of changing our environmental practices throughout the globe. This idea that we can somehow dismiss the issue away because we are a bit better than some other countries is a huge red herring. It is what we hear time and time again from Conservatives and it is getting pretty stale.

(1105) Mr. Brad Vis (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, in December, the Atlantic caucus of the Liberal Party came together with the Prime Minister to make an announcement on heat pumps. It just so happened that the announcement was taking place at the same time as the carbon price was about to go up. For all the rhetoric we are hearing from the member from Kingston today, when push came to shove, when the government was faced with a price increase that people in Atlantic Canada could not afford to stomach, it backed down. Does the member think it is okay for Canadians to pay more in carbon taxes than heating like natural gas, which is very commonly found on bills in Canada today?

Mr. Mark Gerretsen :

Mr. Speaker, eight out of 10 Canadians get back more than they put in. Yes, some Canadians who have very large homes and multiple vehicles probably end up spending more than they get back. In particular, individuals who are on the lower end of the economic spectrum are certainly getting much more back than they are paying. I find it really interesting that he accuses me of all this rhetoric. Conservatives continually miss the point of explaining to Canadians that they are going to get back more than they are paying.

They would rather seek an opportunity to capitalize from a political narrative that suits them right now because it will benefit them politically. However, it will do nothing for the environment and nothing for our country.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ) :

Mr. Speaker, I wish we had started the year the same way you did, with a new look and new priorities. I wish the Conservatives would do the same and let us move on to something other than the carbon tax. That said, it is the topic of the day, and we will respect that. In his speech, my colleague said something about the energy transition that I find very interesting. He talked about the Stellantis investments and the spin-offs for Ontario.

Not only is the government spending billions of dollars to shift one of Quebec's flagship economic sectors, transport electrification, to Ontario, but it is doing so by trying to one-up the U.S. with investments and subsidies. That is what it is doing instead of developing the industry from the mine up and building up the entire supply chain for our mines, our regions. The government should be thinking about how it can ensure that economic development and a green economy are created at each stage. If it had done that, it could have saved money and jump-started a sustainable energy transition.

Right now, the government is subsidizing the top without building the base, and it is buying Chinese lithium. This is the result. What are this government's priorities when it comes to transport electrification? Electrification is the way to avoid the carbon tax.

[ English ]

Mr. Mark Gerretsen :

Mr. Speaker, the priority is to build in Canada. I spent five minutes of my 10-minute speech talking about Umicore, a multi-billion dollar plant that is being built right outside my riding, in the Conservative member's riding of Hastings—Lennox and Addington . It will build 800,000 car batteries per year. There is also a lot of rhetoric. I got a kick out of the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon when, in the previous question, he talked about Atlantic Canada, again trying to pigeonhole this as though it is something just about Atlantic Canada.

Twice as many people in Ontario will benefit from the three-year cap on heating with oil than in Atlantic Canada. Does that change the narrative of the Conservatives? No, of course not, because it does not suit them right now. It would be better to make it seem as though there was some big deal that contributed to that announcement.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I would like to point out that I believe there is an error in the wording of the motion. The motion calls on the Liberal government to cancel the April 1, 2024, carbon tax increase. However, there is no carbon tax. It is actually a price on pollution. I believe that both the House and Canadians are being misled on this issue. Why is it not a tax? For it to be a tax, the government would have to put the money into its coffers with a view to spending it on programs or investing it in the future of Canadians. That is not what the price on pollution does.

With the price on pollution, the government is only an intermediary, because the proceeds are returned to Canadians. It is a price mechanism, something that the Nobel-winning economist Milton Friedman endorsed as an economic measure for fighting pollution. How does this mechanism work in terms of carbon pricing? It is very interesting. It involves a little bit of magic. When a consumer goes to spend money and sees that the price is perhaps a little higher, they are not thinking about the quarterly deposit they will receive from the Government of Canada in their chequing account as compensation.

They just look at the price and decide that, since it is a bit more expensive, they will consume a little less. That saves them money in the short term, and then, on January 1, April 1 and so forth, they realize that money has been deposited in their bank account. They will feel doubly lucky, because they saved money at the pump and also got money from the government.

That is how carbon pricing works, and it is the key to its effectiveness as a measure for fighting pollution, especially greenhouse gas emissions. (1110) [ English ] What is very frustrating about this debate, in addition to the fact that it is the same debate over and over again based on a very symbolic and superficial understanding of what the price on pollution is, are these flimsy conclusions that the official opposition wishes to draw about the impact of the price on pollution on inflation and, more specifically, on food prices.

However, rigorous academic study after rigorous academic study has pointed to the fact that the impact of the price on pollution on food prices is extremely small. Now, we know that the official opposition has no respect for the Bank of Canada and that it would like to take the Bank of Canada under its wing and dictate monetary policy, but it is an incredibly credible institution filled with some of the best economists in this country. What does the Bank of Canada say about the supposed link between the price on carbon and inflation? It says that the price on carbon contributes about 0.15 % to inflation overall.

The University of Calgary, is not, I might add for anyone who does not follow schools of thought and academic life in this country, what I would call a hotbed of socialism. What did the University of Calgary say about the supposed link between the price on carbon and food inflation? University of Calgary economist Trevor Tombe estimates that the price on carbon I will call it, because I do not want to mislead people as it is not a tax, is responsible for less than 1% of grocery price increases. How did Professor Tombe come to that conclusion?

Did he just pull a number out of the air the way the official opposition likes to do? No. He used a Statistics Canada modelling program. Again, we have some of the country's greatest econometric experts working at Statistics Canada, like we do at the Bank of Canada. I do not know if the official opposition members are calling into question the integrity and expertise of Statistics Canada, maybe they are, but I would say that the Statistics Canada modelling program is a credible instrument and that is what Professor Tombe was using.

He goes on to say that in Alberta, because this is very much focused in many ways on Alberta and the oil industry, the price on carbon has increased prices by about 0.3%, which is 30¢ on a $100 bill, in Manitoba it is 0.9% and in Ontario it is 0.4%. These are credible, rigorous academic studies. However, we do not get any of that from the official opposition; rather, we get this kind of false logic, like the shin bone is attached to the knee bone and the knee bone is attached to the thigh bone, etc.

It starts with the idea that there is a price on carbon, which means it is going to cost more to drive a truck, or this and that, and eventually it is going to show up on the shelves. The fact of the matter is that is not real logic founded on a rigorous analysis. The other point I would like to make is that the price of food has gone up. However, according to credible news media like CTV News, and an

article posted on its website, there are a number of factors that are contributing to the high price of food. The first is climate change. Devastating wildfires continue to rage across Canada, destroying forests and farmland. Let us use a bit of simplistic logic that maybe the official opposition can understand. If farmland is destroyed, what happens to the supply of food? It goes down. The Leader of the Opposition thinks of himself as a wonderful and great economist, but what happens when the supply of food goes down and the demand stays the same? What happens to the price? It goes up.

That is the number one cause of rising food prices. It is basic logic. The really interesting thing is that greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector are not regulated. There is no price on carbon on greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector. As a matter of fact, a lot of people have been writing to me saying that we have to price greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural lands, but we have not done that. What is another aspect that is causing challenges to the supply of food? Can members guess what Ukraine has been called? It has been called the breadbasket of Europe.

I think it is going through some tough times, which may be limiting the supply of wheat from that part of the world. Again, if we constrain supply in the face of a demand that is stable or even increasing, we get higher prices. I do not know why the leader of the official opposition does not click into that. It is basic economics 101. Therefore, we have to look at these other causes. The price on carbon is not the cause of all the woes around the world and we have to stop saying that.

What the members of the official opposition like to do, over and again, through these opposition day motions is build straw men, which they then demolish on social media while pretending to be heroes. That is all this is about. It is all about social media hits.

(1115) Mr. Frank Caputo (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. Before I begin, I want to recognize the life of a very significant individual in my riding, Bob Gieselman, who passed away recently. Bob devoted a lot to the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo and around in service to the community. My condolences to his family. May perpetual light shine upon him. My hon. colleague said that we are having the same debate and that it is superficial and symbolic.

What is not superficial and symbolic are the people who are writing me letters saying that they have to choose between heating and eating or that they cannot afford a $6 bag of lettuce. What are we supposed to be doing here if not talking about the issue of Canadian affordability? I really take issue with the Liberals framing this as if there is nothing to see here. There is something to see here, which is that people cannot afford to live in Canada. The Liberals should be ashamed for ignoring that.

(1120) Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia :

Mr. Speaker, my condolences to the hon. member on the loss of his constituent. I am glad that he took the opportunity to mention that. I am sure the constituent's family will appreciate that deeply. The member was just not listening. We do not deny that the price of food is high. We are just reminding the member and his party that it is not because of the price on carbon. There is a war in Ukraine. There are wildfires and floods that are destroying farmland in Canada. These are the factors that are driving the price of food. Fortunately, food inflation is coming down to match general inflation. That is a good sign, but let us hope that continues.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ) :

Mr. Speaker, it is funny that we are talking about the carbon tax today, because just this morning, the Parliamentary Budget Officer released the costing of the tax credit for carbon capture, utilization and storage. How much will this measure cost over the next five years? It will cost approximately $5.5 billion. I would like to know if my colleague agrees with me that it would be a far better idea to invest this money in true green energy than to try to convince us that oil can be environmentally friendly.

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia :

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I have not seen the report my colleague is talking about. The Liberal government is obviously not trying to eliminate fossil fuels. We are going to have to live with that for a while yet. Yes, there are clean energy sources. The member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry was talking about green tidal energy. We have to invest, and the government is investing. There are technologies that are still in development, like what my colleague from Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry was talking about. The Bay of Fundy project did not fail because of federal government regulations.

The problem is that it is very hard to reap the benefits of that kind of technology at this point in time. There are limits, but we have to keep investing. Unfortunately, we have to deal with fossil fuels for a while yet.

[ English ]

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for my hon. colleague, but I was a little frustrated this morning because in trying to use logic on a party leader who bases everything on a bumper sticker slogan, my colleague is wasting his efforts. The issue at hand here is that the Leader of the Opposition is accusing the Liberals of not having an environmental plan, which I might agree with on most days, but there is no Conservative environmental plan other than letting the planet burn. What are the Conservatives willing to throw under the bus to let the planet burn right now in Alberta?

Not a single member of the Alberta or Saskatchewan MPs have stood up about the climate disaster that is unfolding. Thirteen counties have declared environmental disasters from the drought. This is four years into a drought. There is no snow in Edmonton. The climate crisis and a burning planet are affecting farmers and not a single one of them would ever stand up and defend farmers from climate change. They would rather throw them under the bus so that Rich Kruger and Suncor can make more money. That is the Conservatives' environmental plan.

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia :

Mr. Speaker, the member is totally correct. There was an

article on the CBC website last night about how Alberta farmers are very worried about the loss of groundwater. Therefore, at some point, the Alberta farmers are going to go to see the Alberta government and say, “Look, we have a problem here. We know that the oil industry is important in our province, but think of us for a change.”

[ Translation ]

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) :

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the incomparable member for Mirabel . Today I would like to address a serious problem. Canadians are being legally robbed of their savings as they struggle to make ends meet, pay all their bills and find housing. This legalized robbery in the context of the soaring cost of living and the affordability crisis involves the price of energy, the main cause of inflation. We have to face the fact that carbon use is expensive.

While exhausted and financially strapped Canadians are paying high prices, an elite group out of touch with the people is reaping the benefits and enjoying a privileged life. As citizens struggle to make ends meet, the oil and gas sector is making record profits. In 2020, 2021 and 2022, they raked in several billion dollars in profits, half of it in 2022 alone. Profits for 2022 are estimated at $270 billion. We should think about what this figure means. These $270 billion went into the pockets of major companies, 70% of whose shareholders are foreign.

Of course, these companies need the oil monarchy in Ottawa to provide them with lavish guarantees and hefty direct and indirect subsidies, which they could easily do without. Of course, the Conservatives do not talk about this, since they have an incestuous relationship with the oil companies, which are awash in profits. Despite their rhetoric of common sense, the Conservatives, who have no plan to end our dependence on fossil fuels, prefer to blather on for the umpteenth time about the carbon tax, which does not apply in Quebec. Let us be serious for a moment.

If we want to talk about the real problem, we can talk about the six tax credits, worth a total of $83 billion by 2025, granted in the last two Liberal-NDP government budgets. In particular, two of these tax credits stand out. First, there is the clean technology investment tax credit, which, despite its name, will encourage increased bitumen extraction and gas exports. Then there is the carbon capture, utilization and storage investment tax credit, which helps oil companies pump out every last drop of oil by supporting an experimental technique that shows all the signs of being a greenwashing scheme.

This is not to mention the fact that the federal government nationalized the Trans Mountain pipeline, whose expansion will cost $30.9 billion, most of which will be paid for by taxpayers. This is nothing new. According to a report by Equiterre, in April 2019, Finance Canada and Environment Canada failed to keep their promise to cancel subsidies for fossil energies. According to Equiterre, they gave the oil companies $1.6 billion. In November 2018, the same group estimated that, between 2012 and 2017, Export Development Canada gave 12 times more money to fossil fuels than to clean energies.

Some people believe that Equiterre is an environmental group. Let us see what the International Monetary Fund has to say. In 2019, the IMF estimated that direct subsidies and indirect support to fossil fuels in Canada amounted to $54 billion in 2017. The problem is clear. It should jump out at anyone who has eyes to see. While our fellow citizens are suffering from rampant inflation, wealthy oil and gas companies are benefiting, with the aid of the Liberals and Conservatives.

All this is happening while scientists are saying that, if we want to be serious about it, if we want to be responsible, we should be leaving 80% of our oil underground. Moreover, more than 95% of Canadian oil comes from the tar sands, one of the most polluting oils on earth. Climate change, which the Conservatives never speak of, is costing everyone. In 2025, it could cost Canada's and Quebec's economies $25 billion. In addition to being unfair and ecocidal, Canada's “everything for oil” religion is not even a good economic choice. It hampers the diversification of the Canadian economy.

The exploitation of natural resources is closely linked to the decline in the manufacturing sector. Members might remember that there were hundreds of thousands of jobs lost in Quebec, jobs related to the increase in the value of the Canadian dollar, which was itself linked to the increase in bitumen exports. The question that arises is, how can we ease the financial burden on our fellow citizens?

(1125) Of course, we can listen to the Conservatives propose eliminating the so-called carbon tax in a motion that does not even define what that means. Let us not forget that the carbon tax does not apply to Quebec, which has its own carbon exchange system. In 2013, Quebec partnered with California, with which it shares a greenhouse gas cap-and-trade system, and there has been no negative impact so far. The measure was adopted under Jean Charest, aspiring leader of the Conservative Party. Because of this system, Quebec is not affected by the tax.

The other carbon policy, which some on that side of the House call a second tax on carbon, is not a tax at all because none of it goes to the government. Not a penny from the clean fuel regulations finds its way into government coffers. These regulations are nothing more than an update of the regulations adopted in 2010 by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, under whom the current Conservative leader served as a parliamentary secretary. There is only one difference between the two versions of the regulations.

Instead of imposing an average, namely, the 5% ethanol content of the gasoline prescribed in the former Conservative version, the government is imposing an outcome. In practical terms, the new regulations require that each litre of gasoline produced in 2030 must generate 15% fewer greenhouse gas emissions than in 2019. That is all. Unlike the previous version adopted under the Conservatives, the government is not telling the oil companies how to reduce their emissions.

They can reduce the emissions they generate during their crude oil extraction or refining activities, use a cleaner type of oil that generates less pollution than oil sands during the refinery process, or mix more biofuels, like ethanol, in with the gasoline to reduce its oil content. All options are on the table. The choice is up to them. The regulations have minimal, if any effect in Quebec.

The Quebec government has already passed its Regulation respecting the integration of low-carbon-intensity fuel content into gasoline and diesel fuel, which already stipulates that fuel sold in Quebec must contain 15% biofuels. Just as they seem to do every single day, the Conservatives are once again proposing a measure that will increase pollution. This measure offers a bonus to those who heat with dirty fuels and offers nothing to those who do not pollute, such as people who heat with electricity or renewable sources.

That is unfair, because, on some level, it is primarily lower-income households that benefit from the carbon tax. The government has committed to returning fuel charge proceeds directly to individuals and families through climate action incentive payments. This fuel charge therefore benefits low-income households, since they get back more than they pay. In other words, suspending the carbon tax does not serve the most vulnerable. Making up problems is not going to solve anything.

Quebeckers have been relatively spared from the high cost of heating not because the federal carbon tax does not apply in Quebec, but because they chose renewable energy, including for heating, a long time ago. Canadian taxes are not the problem. It is the billions of dollars of taxpayer money that Ottawa is giving in direct or indirect subsidies to the oil and gas companies in western Canada that is the problem. Let us put an end to that. Let us come up with a serious energy transition plan. The economy and our planet will benefit from that. We will all come out ahead. That is what real common sense looks like.

(1130) [ English ]

Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I admire the way in which the hon. member presented his case. He is really quite concerned about the effect of climate change on the country. If, in fact, he thinks that the revenues from oil sands are, shall we say, problematic, is it his position that the transfer payments that go to Quebec under the revenues of the federal government should be reduced accordingly so that the position the hon. member is taking would have some consistency?

(1135) [ Translation ]

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to remind my colleague that equalization payments are largely a myth. I would also like to invite him to read an excellent document that was released a few months ago on the finances of an independent Quebec, which shows that we would have more than enough money. What is more, our finances would not have to be administered by a state whose priorities are different from ours. For example, our money could be put toward the aerospace industry, renewable energy or the many other sectors that are completely ignored and neglected by Ottawa, unlike western Canada's oil industry and Ontario's auto industry.

[ English ]

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif (Edmonton Manning, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about wanting to solve the environmental issues, but only from lens of what suits Quebec. It does not suit other places, such as Alberta, where the temperature was -50°C a few weeks ago. The carbon tax is not working. Emissions are not being reduced, and Canadians are paying more than they receive. If the system is not working, does the member believe that we should continue with it, or should we halt it to move to another way of dealing with the environment?

[ Translation ]

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

Mr. Speaker, we have to be careful. I have repeatedly talked about the impact on the Canadian economy. It goes without saying that climate change is a global and therefore international issue, and that can pose a problem when one country's decisions impact all the others. That goes without saying. I spent a lot of my speech explaining that the system does not work. The problem I have with this carbon tax is that it is a small measure with little or no impact. If there is an impact, it is not particularly negative. There is not much to it.

In fact, the crux of the problem is the billions of dollars in funding that go to the oil and gas companies, which are raking in the profits. That is the problem. There are no real programs or real plans for energy transition. That is the crux of the problem. The system does not work. Of course, for some it works very well. It is a system that favours only the wealthiest, an elite group. Unfortunately, the Conservatives do not challenge that.

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague knows, people find it frustrating to pay higher bills when big oil CEOs are raking in the profits at their expense. Why does he think the Liberals and the Conservatives are refusing to make these CEOs pay their fair share and help put money back in people's pockets?

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating my colleague on her excellent French. I was genuinely impressed. I think we should applaud her efforts. I do not know if she is currently learning French, and we will talk about that after, but kudos to her. With that praise comes criticism, however. Unfortunately, I have to remind my colleague that she voted in favour of Liberal budgets full of even more goodies for oil companies. Nonetheless, I do agree that we need to be able to demand more of them and redistribute that to the people.

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ) :

Mr. Speaker, I felt a little uncomfortable giving a speech today. The House leader of the Bloc Québécois called me yesterday to tell me that the Conservatives would be moving a super original motion today on the carbon tax. I read the motion and told the House leader that the speech should be given by the member for Montarville, because he is the foreign affairs critic. As we know, this whole issue does not really apply to Quebec. One day we will be our own country, and we will discuss this at the UN. For the time being, we have to debate it in other people's parliaments, but this does not apply to Quebec.

I see it as a diplomatic issue, and anyone who knows me well knows that I am probably not the best person to engage in diplomacy; yet here I am, rising in the House today. We are here to debate a motion that is, as usual, ridiculous. To be frank, the motion is utterly ridiculous. It is patently false. We do not know whether this motion stems from bad faith, incompetence or a combination of the two, as is often the case. The reason the Conservatives write these motions is to create an echo. It is so they can once again say that the Bloc Québécois voted in favour of the carbon tax.

They are trying to create an echo, but the echo that comes from these Conservative motions is like any other echo. It is hollow. When someone stands on the edge of the Grand Canyon and shouts “hello”, it comes back as “hello, -o, -o, -o”. When we look at the Conservatives' motions, they talk about a first, second, third, fifth carbon tax. It is an echo, and it is hollow. The Conservatives started with the first one. The first one was the real carbon tax. They fell on it like rabid animals. They did not know that it did not apply to Quebec. I guess they did not have the expertise. Mistakes happen.

They began to backpedal. In politics, it can be hard to admit to being wrong. In time, they came to the conclusion that it was true that it did not apply to Quebec, so there would have to be a second carbon tax. That was when they invented the second carbon tax, referring to the clean fuel regulations. Then they realized that Quebec already had its own regulations, that its regulations were already in effect, and that the federal regulations were for 2030. Nevertheless, they began saying that the price of gas would jump by 13¢ or 14¢ a litre. The price of gas did go up.

Then they said that people would no longer be able to afford turkeys, so Thanksgiving would be ruined. The price of gas has dropped 20¢ since then. It even dropped on Thanksgiving. The Conservative leader and the members from Quebec were not there to say so, so the price went down. They looked silly, but they are resilient. We like them, really. They are resilient. Conservatives are tough. They figured there must be a third carbon tax coming down the pike. To hear the Conservatives talk, when I buy a piece of furniture at Ikea, it must have been made in Alberta. Everything comes from Alberta.

It is transportation, it is this, it is that, only now we have the figures for inflation. Now they are interested. They talk about it all the time. Inflation is one point higher in Quebec than in Alberta, but the federal carbon tax hurts Albertans more than anyone else. Then they decided that they needed to come up with a fourth one. The fourth one was a good one. It did not last long, because we took care of it. We are onto them now. We have become experts at nipping this in the bud. The member for Charlesbourg—Haute‑Saint‑Charles is the Conservative envoy to Quebec, a future minister if ever there were one.

He is the opposition leader's Louis XIV in Quebec. He is the king. He told the House that it is true that Quebec has its own emissions permit system, but it is the federal government's fault that the cost of the permits has gone up in Quebec. We want to table a document to prove that this is not true, but he is opposing that. The member for Charlesbourg—Haute‑Saint‑Charles, the Quebec lieutenant, thinks there is a correlation. To him, there are more drownings in the summer because of ice-cream sales; the two go hand in hand. That is how it works, in his mind.

We explained to him that emissions permits in Quebec are issued under a government order that predates the federal carbon tax. It is a government order. It was done with California, which is 10 times bigger than we are. It is consistent with our goal of reducing our emissions by 37.5% below 1990 levels. The biggest factor driving the price of permits is demand from California. It is not that I do not like Canada, but Californians could not care less about the federal government. It is the least of their problems. They buy permits, and that has an effect on the price. That is where things stand now.

The next step, the sixth carbon tax, will be a world economic forum for Freemasons.

(1140) That is where things stand now. We are on the fifth or sixth carbon tax. I have lost track. I am not sure what number carbon tax we are up to. Now the carbon tax is no longer an environmental plan, but a tax plan. Incidentally, the translation is bad because the French version of the motion uses “mesure fiscale”, or tax measure, but the English one uses “tax plan”. “Tax measure” sounds milder in Quebec,

whereas a “tax plan” sounds like something worth ranting about. The Conservatives are saying that the carbon tax is a tax plan. That is what the motion says. The Conservatives seem to have forgotten about the “environmental” part of environmental taxation. That is understandable because they do not see any connection between the economy and the environment, innovation, the development of new technologies and collective prosperity. The Conservatives only understand the connection between two things: extraction and extraction. They can understand that one equals one. That is easy.

However, the Conservatives think taxation has no place in an environmental plan, except when they find themselves in a situation where they need tax credits for their buddies in Alberta. That, Quebeckers pay for. When the time comes for a carbon capture tax credit, when businesses need a tax credit from us, suddenly taxation is important. However, that is not a tax plan, no matter how much they rant and rave that it is.

When the conversation turns to a clean technology tax credit, when the Conservatives tell us that they would like Quebeckers' taxes to be used to fund small nuclear reactors so that we can stop using gas to process oil sands and instead take that gas, pump it through new pipelines to the port in British Columbia that is nearing completion, and then sell that gas, all with the support of taxation, they do not see that as a tax plan at all. When it comes to tax credits for dirty hydrogen, which plan is it? All of a sudden, they see a connection between the environment and taxation.

However, when it comes to acknowledging the science that clearly links emissions reductions with carbon pricing in other provinces, when it comes to the system we have in Quebec, which uses very robust empirical evaluations, when it comes to the regime in British Columbia, when we know that trading emissions permits with Europe and the United States works, when it is time to acknowledge the science, the Conservatives absolutely never agree. They say it is a tax plan. These are Conservatives who supposedly have faith in the market. The people on the right say the market works.

The market sets a price, and people react to that price, until the environment is involved, that is. Then, suddenly, economics 101 goes by the board. What do the Conservatives support time after time, especially the ones from Quebec whom we never see talking about this? Maybe it is because they are too embarrassed. Maybe it is because they are working on the eighth, ninth or tenth carbon tax, working ahead so they can give us all of them at once. What they support is a plan to help oil companies by taxing Quebeckers. As I have said, they are compulsive taxers.

We are talking $83 billion in subsidies for Alberta oil companies, paid for by Quebeckers through their taxes. Meanwhile, we have people waiting in hospital hallways and we are asking for way less than that in health transfers, but where are the Quebec Conservatives? They are nowhere to be seen. They are hiding. We do not see them. Immigration and taking care of irregular migrants has cost Quebec $470 million, and the feds are supposed to cover that, yet they say they are going to give Quebec a mere $100 million and will not be paying Quebec's debt.

None of the Quebec Conservatives are standing up because no expense is too great for oil companies, but any expense is too great when it comes to taking care of Quebeckers. The Quebec Conservatives all think that they are going to become ministers. I do not know what they will be ministers of, and I would not want to be the one who has to make those decisions, but I will say that Quebeckers will have to pay dearly for those members' cabinet seats. The Conservatives have already started to abandon Quebeckers. They are good at that.

I want to remind the House of a deadline that is coming up, when we will have to explain our platforms to Quebeckers and justify our actions to them. The Bloc Québécois will be able to say that we have been completely trustworthy.

(1145) Quebeckers are going to listen to what I just said about the Conservatives because they are a lot smarter than the members on this side of the House think.

[ English ]

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member when he said that Canadians as a whole are smarter than what the Conservatives are giving them credit for. In fact, what we are seeing is a great con job by the Conservative Party on the issue of its so-called “first priority”, that being getting rid of the carbon tax. The type of misinformation that is out there is quite significant. One of them is tying the price on carbon to inflation.

Interestingly enough, when the issue was brought up with the Bank of Canada, Governor Macklem indicated, when referring to the carbon tax, that the “contribution that's making to inflation one year to the next is relatively small. If you want me to put a number on it, it's in the range of 0.15 per cent, so quite small.” That is incredible. If we listened to the Conservatives' spin, one would think that it is the driving force of inflation in Canada. I wonder if the member would attempt to dispel that particular untruth that is being spread by the Conservative Party of Canada.

(1150) [ Translation ]

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon :

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative leader is obsessed with the carbon tax. I would not dare to speculate on how many times a day he thinks about it. He even blames the carbon tax for inflation. Now, it is true that studies have been done. The Parliamentary Budget Officer and the Bank of Canada have concluded that the carbon tax had very little effect. There are other factors in Quebec that are driving up prices, such as the housing crisis. During question period yesterday, the Liberals were bragging about having paid Quebec so much money, saying that they had matched Quebec's investment.

We had to fight for the money that Ottawa owed Quebec. No housing has been built for years. Negotiations dragged on. When it comes to housing, the Liberals refuse to give Quebec City any money. They would rather squabble and see the Liberal logo in front of construction sites. It has an impact. I realize that the parliamentary secretary wants us to turn on the Conservatives and criticize them. Sooner or later, the Liberals will have to admit that they, too, have made mistakes and that they, too, often underestimate Quebeckers' intelligence by saying that they are building housing.

As far as immigration targets are concerned, Quebec wants to be consulted. The Minister of Immigration is literally telling us that Ottawa is not an ATM, as though Quebeckers are no more than freeloaders who are not paying their fair share into the federal treasury. The parliamentary secretary can criticize the Conservatives if he wants to, but I think that the Liberal government has lot to account for too. I think he should reflect carefully on that.

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, I am going to try to ask another question in French. Quebeckers are fortunate to be able to rely on an electrical grid powered primarily by hydroelectricity. Can my colleague explain his vision of a more equitable carbon pricing system for Canadians across the country?

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon :

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to seem like I am sidestepping the question, but that is none of our concern. The federal carbon tax is none of our concern. The taxation of carbon in the other provinces is none of our concern. It does not apply in Quebec. Quebec decided to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 37.5% below 1990 levels by 2030. It came up with the means and found partners to achieve its goal. Some Canadian provinces were initially involved, but they left this system. They did not want to participate, and now they are stuck with the federal government meddling in their own affairs.

In Quebec, we are proud of this system because we do not have to deal with these issues. We have a system that reflects who we are, that is based on the quantity of emissions instead of on the price. It is consistent with the way we produce our electricity and how we heat our buildings. I will let the nine other provinces deal with their own problems.

[ English ]

Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Timmins—James Bay . Canadians across the country are feeling the squeeze. After years of successive Conservative and Liberal governments, Canadians are left with being priced out of home ownership. They are skipping meals to save money. They are unable to afford to pay for their home heating and unable to afford their medication. At the same time, they are witnessing extreme weather events: flooding, droughts and record-breaking heat waves. However, the Liberal government continues to delay, downplay the crises and disappoint Canadians.

We are living in an affordability crisis and a climate crisis, and it seems like the government is comfortable just sticking its head in the sand. While the Conservatives love to talk about affordability, the truth is that they want to cut the services Canadians depend on. They have no plan when it comes to tackling the climate crisis. Conservative members refuse to actually acknowledge the impacts of the climate crisis. They are not sure whether the climate crisis is real.

Their party’s national governing body is made up of about 50% lobbyists from the corporations that are gouging Canadians, in big oil and gas, big pharma and real estate development. These are the wealthy people who profit at the expense of everyday Canadians. We have had this debate in the House several times, and every time, Conservative members are showing Canadians that they think big oil should get away with polluting in obscene amounts. The Conservatives believe that megacorporations should be able to pollute and have Canadians pick up the tab.

Corporations like Imperial Oil feel they can operate with impunity. They do not feel they have any responsibility to Canadians to keep the environment healthy. I urge my Conservative colleagues to listen to the first nations and Métis people in northern Alberta, who have been shouting from the rooftops for decades that corporations like Imperial Oil have no regard for human health, the environment or the future of our planet. Every summer, crops are failing because conditions are too dry and too hot, or because there is flooding. Food cannot grow effectively in these conditions.

Do my Conservative colleagues not understand the connection between the climate crisis and the cost of groceries, or are they willing to ignore this reality? Having no plan is not an option. On the other hand, the Liberal government is also failing Canadians. While Canadians are struggling with the cost of living, the Liberals have refused to implement a windfall profit tax on the record-breaking profits of the oil and gas industry. The Liberals keep giving huge handouts to oil and gas giants to fund false climate solutions like carbon capture and storage.

Now it has come out that the Trans Mountain pipeline has cost taxpayers $35 billion. That is $35 billion that increases oil and gas pollution, increases our national debt and operates at a loss. This is $35 billion that could have gone into green infrastructure, renewable energy and home retrofitting. It is $35 billion that could have gone into sustainable jobs and supporting communities impacted by the climate crisis.

It is bewildering to me that when there is the opportunity for creating high-quality union jobs in the clean energy sector, the government continues to pour money into supporting the corporations that are making record-breaking profits, all while wildfires rage and ravage our forests every summer. We need to take real climate action. Currently, buildings are the third-highest source of emissions in Canada, so retrofitting buildings is essential if we want to achieve our climate targets. It is essential if we want to achieve net zero, and it is essential if we want to make life more affordable for Canadians.

If the government can make taxpayers pay for a $35-billion pipeline, surely it can afford to fix and expand the greener homes program. Surely it can provide heat pumps for Canadians who need them, not only to heat their homes but also to cool them when we are having record-breaking heat waves that take the lives of hundreds of British Columbians. We are also living in a cost of living crisis. Tackling the climate crisis can actually make life more affordable for Canadians. In fact, there are so many ways the government can help Canadians save money and fight the climate crisis at the same time.

(1155) Unlike the Conservatives and the Liberals, New Democrats have a plan to tackle the climate crisis and the affordability crisis. Last fall, the NDP presented a motion to make heat pumps free for low- and middle-income Canadians, as well as to take the GST off all forms of home heating. Instead of providing Canadians with real solutions to fight the climate crisis and the affordability crisis by voting with the NDP, the Liberals and the Conservatives teamed up to vote our motion down. Heat pumps are such an easy solution for making home heating more efficient.

They use up less energy, reduce electricity and heating bills, and will play an important role in decarbonizing buildings. They also save lives in heat domes. An average family would save $700 to $1,900 per year if they were supported to switch to a heat pump, but the current government grants for heat pumps are difficult to apply for, require folks to pay up front and wait months to get their money back, and are inaccessible for so many, especially low-income Canadians. Instead of fixing these problems for this very popular program, the Liberals have decided to cut funding.

There are simple, cost-effective solutions out there. Renewable energy and installing heat pumps will make the cost of electricity cheaper, but the Liberals and Conservatives show time and time again that they are not looking out for the best interests of Canadians; they are looking out for the best interests of CEOs of oil and gas companies. These parties show their true colours and will always take the side of corporate elites and billionaires over everyday Canadians. Canadians are tired of watching the government fail to take action when we are living through a cost of living crisis and a climate crisis.

People should not have to choose between a party with no plan and a party that continues to drag its feet. New Democrats have a plan to tackle the climate crisis and the affordability crisis, and we will keep fighting for everyday Canadians.

(1200) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, in many ways, I think it is important for us to look at the contrast on the table today in regard to what the Conservative Party of Canada continues to propose, and which will no doubt become a major election platform. It is determined to get rid of a price on pollution. That policy is in contrast with what other opposition parties are saying and what the government is saying. The amount of misinformation that the Conservative Party is spreading through social media and in other ways is, I believe, to the detriment of sound policy. Could the member provide her thoughts on the damage caused by the misinformation that is out there today about the price on pollution?

Ms. Laurel Collins :

Mr. Speaker, I think the misinformation is incredibly concerning. The Conservatives have come to British Columbia, my home province, with a campaign to axe the tax. The federal carbon tax does not apply in British Columbia. British Columbia has its own carbon tax that was put in by a small-c conservative premier years ago, yet this Conservative caucus and its leader seem shameless in promoting this kind of misinformation. Canadians also do not realize that the current carbon pricing system that the government has put in place really allows big corporations to pay a small fraction of the carbon price.

Suncor pays 1/14th of what Canadians pay. This is appalling. We need to fix the loopholes in the output-based pricing system that let big corporations off the hook.

Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I know that the member is part of a party whose members are always up on their feet talking about unaffordability and the way that Canadians are struggling. However, does she not realize that the carbon tax is part of the problem, because farmers are being taxed, as are the shipping of food, the processing of food, grocery stores, and people's heating bills? This is part of the affordability problem. Other G7 countries have just decided to cut taxes because they know that will help people. Does she not see that this is the right approach and that we should axe the tax?

Ms. Laurel Collins :

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Conservatives continue to ignore the fact that what is causing the increases in the cost of food and in so many costs along our supply chain is the climate crisis. The climate crisis has a huge impact on farmers. When I speak to farmers, they talk about the droughts, heat waves and flooding, and how these impact the work they do. Experts have been very clear about what disproportionately impacts food prices in Canada. Why does the Conservative Party still have no plan to tackle the climate crisis? The member also raised the issue of other countries.

Because other countries are also seeing the need to implement carbon pricing, the borders are soon going to have carbon adjustments. If we do not have a real plan, we will be paying higher prices.

(1205) [ Translation ]

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) :

Mr. Speaker, that last answer was very good. I often say the same thing because I come from a very agricultural riding. Many people assume that farmers are polluters, but that is completely false. If anyone can understand or if anyone is experiencing the effects of climate change, it is farmers. To come back to the member's speech, I agreed with many of the points that she made and with the main idea of her speech, but I want to ask her a question. In the Liberal government's last two budgets, there were at least six tax credits that will give billions more dollars in gifts to the oil and gas industry. I would like to know why the member voted in favour of those budgets.

[ English ]

Ms. Laurel Collins :

Mr. Speaker, I agree wholeheartedly. Farmers understand the climate crisis, are speaking out and are also doing incredible work to combat the climate crisis at the same time. With respect to his question about the fact that the Liberal government continues to hand out billions of dollars to carbon capture and storage and to other false climate solutions, it is shameful that we have a government that seems more interested in taking care of the rich oil and gas CEOs than everyday Canadians. This is part of the reason I am part of the New Democrat Party, which is pushing the government to do better.

Without our pushing the government, it would not have implemented dental care to support millions of Canadians. It would not have implemented a sustainable jobs act. It would not be doing the things that actually help everyday Canadians and fight the climate crisis. We will keep pushing the government because it seems unwilling to do it on its own.

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured, as always, to rise in this House. I have been here 20 years, and I have never seen a time when I feel that our country and our planet are at risk as much as they are now. This is a time when people should be looking to parliamentarians to come together to deal with solutions. Instead, we are dealing with yet another Conservative motion, which shows that the Conservative Party leader 's entire economic plan could fit on a lapel button. I think what is missing in the discussion today is the fact that we are in the midst of a global crisis.

Europe is worried that it could be dealing with a massive expansion of a potential war with Putin. There is the need for Canada to be a strong ally. Contrary to what the member who lives at Stornoway says, Ukraine is not some faraway land, as he quotes Neville Chamberlain, but it is the front line in the fight for democracy. This is something we should be coming together on. We are seeing a mass humanitarian disaster unfolding in Gaza, with Canada cutting off supplies at a time when people are facing starvation. This is a humanitarian disaster that Canadians could step up for.

Instead, we are siding with Benjamin Netanyahu. We are dealing with the fact that every hour 30 million tonnes of ice melt from the Greenland ice floes; that is 30 million tonnes an hour. Last year, 200,000 Canadians were forced out of their homes because of climate fires, yet the Conservative leader flew into the fire zones to brag that he would make burning fossil fuels free. The Liberals do not really have an environmental plan. That is something we should be arguing; they do not. However, the Conservatives refuse to put forward a climate plan, other than to let the planet burn.

That is the sum total of what I have heard from the Conservatives for the last three years: let the planet burn. At a time when our young people are facing a future that is increasingly unstable, we are left with yet another dismal debate in the House of Commons on slogans and bumper-sticker excuses. When Kelowna was facing a potential catastrophic disaster with fires, the member for Kelowna—Lake Country was bragging that if her party formed the government, it would make fossil fuel burning free. In Alberta, when I was there last week, there was just a little powder of snow on the ground in January.

It is above freezing now. It is now coming into the fourth year of a serious drought. There are 13 counties in Alberta that have declared environmental disasters because they cannot get their crops out. In 2021, the cattle farmers were talking about how only 36% of their crops were in good condition; that was in 2021. They made it through that year by getting the holdover pay from 2020.

Now, coming into 2024 with no snow on the ground, we are seeing rivers drying up, and not a single Conservative from Alberta or Saskatchewan has ever bothered to stand up to defend their farmers in the face of the biggest climate crisis since the dirty thirties. They would throw them under the bus to satisfy their leader, who lives in a 19-room mansion, because it is about letting the planet burn. The Conservatives from British Columbia will get up and falsely try to mislead their own citizens that they are paying a federal carbon tax when there is not one.

Not a single Conservative from British Columbia has dared to stand up in the House to talk about the fact that the rising hydro prices in B.C. are from the depleted reservoirs from the droughts. British Columbia, a hydro superpower, had to import 20% of its energy capacity last year because it could not keep the lights on because of the droughts and the low reservoirs. That is the effect of the climate crisis.

We are dealing with real-time planetary breakdown of the disappearance of the ice shelves and of unprecedented fires, where much of last summer, across from Chicago and across North America, children could not go outside without getting sick. What did we hear from the Conservatives? Let the planet burn.

(1210) In all my years, there were times we came together on simple things, like jobs. However, that is not in the Conservative agenda because the Conservatives tell people that Canada is broken, even though we were voted number one in the world. If Canada is not broken, the Conservatives will make it broken. Bill C-49 is a bill so that Canada could get in the game with the clean energy projects that are taking off in the United States, right now. Since 2021, under the Biden administration, $360 billion in clean energy projects got off the ground, and they are not getting off the ground here for two reasons.

While the Liberals are trying to get their tax credits and work it all out, Biden is getting that money out the door. We are also seeing the Conservatives blocking sustainable jobs legislation and doing every kind of monkey-wrenching, idiotic stunt to stop workers from having a seat at the table.

Even more astounding is Bill C-49 where the Newfoundland and Labrador premier and the Nova Scotia premier have called for Ottawa to come to the table because the United States is moving ahead so rapidly on offshore wind development that would set up projects for construction and long-term jobs in the hundreds of thousands of homes that are getting clean energy. However, the Conservatives from Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia are determined to block jobs because that is what their leaders said: Make Canada broken. If it is not broken, they are going to break it. Their plan is to let the planet burn.

Here is the thing. The Premier of Nova Scotia said that Bill C-49 is the necessary first step in unlocking our energy potential, yet the member for Cumberland—Colchester , a guy who has just been elected for two or three years, is announcing that he is going to oppose offshore development and jobs in Nova Scotia. The member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame said that he thought the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador had been hoodwinked and that the premier was not bright enough to negotiate good construction and permanent jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador.

There was a time when we all would have worked to get those jobs off the ground because we know sustainability in every part of Canada is important. However, these are clean-energy jobs, and that is something that the leader of the Conservative Party does not want to have happen, because his environmental plan is to let the planet burn. The Conservatives talk about affordability. It was the Conservatives who led the fight against taking the HST off home heating. This is not about making it easier for people; it is about making people angrier. That is his one plan.

However, what really concerns me now is that we are in the midst of a climate catastrophe that is unfolding in real time, and we need to bring our plans to the table. We need to debate them. We need to find out how Canada can, number one, get in the clean-energy market that is taking off in China, in Europe and in the United States while we are sitting at the side of the road. Even more, there is the need to reassure this young generation that we will have their backs in trying to address the catastrophic collapse of the ice shelves and the unimaginable burning that we saw last year.

We still have fires burning in northern Alberta today. That is unprecedented. The northern boreal forest burned at an unprecedented rate. What do we hear from the Conservatives? They do not have an environmental plan. They have a bumper-sticker slogan and if people push them hard, it is “let the planet burn”. I did not come here to tell my kids and their next generation of kids, “Guess what. We let the planet burn because it was easy.” Yes, it is easy to let the planet burn and, yes, it is going to be hard to make sure that we stand up for our kids. Yes, it is going to be hard to stand up to Putin.

Yes, it is going to be hard to come together, but we need to do that as a nation right now. This is a nation that will be judged on the absolute failure to put forward a plan in the midst of the biggest existential crisis the human race has faced, and it needs something better than a bumper sticker and a toxic lapel-pin slogan.

(1215) Mr. Brad Vis (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, when I was listening to the member from Timmins, Ontario, speak about the floods and fires that happened in Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon , I could not help but remember the Order Paper question I received this week, which outlined that the government came to my riding on multiple occasions and said that it was giving billions of dollars to help rebuild British Columbia and to help rebuild the climate infrastructure we need for the future. Barely a penny of it has arrived. Just this week, the Sumas River is on flood warning again. Just this week, we are about to have another flood.

The government could have fixed that, but it cannot because the NDP backs up everything this irresponsible, slogan government does. My community is suffering because it is not taking action on the very things it talks about day in and day out. When will the money for the DFAA to fix British Columbia actually be allocated to the communities that need it the most?

Mr. Charlie Angus :

Madam Speaker, we finally see someone from British Columbia stand up and actually speak for his community that is facing a climate disaster. What have we heard? We have heard “get that tax off”, “let us burn the planet” and “all the people in British Columbia who are not paying a federal carbon tax, we have to get them all stoked”. I would like to say to the member that, yes, he is ground zero in the climate catastrophe, and his leader 's response is to let them burn. He has done nothing. Does that member have a climate plan? No, he does not.

He has a bumper-sticker slogan and some toxic little lapel pin that says, “Let them burn”. That is their only response. They are leaving their people behind. We will stand up.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, at the beginning of the member's comments, he made reference to Ukraine. I want to pick up on that point because it is somewhat profound. We had the President of Ukraine come to Canada last year. We have a trade agreement, which has the support of Liberals, the New Democrats, the Bloc and, as I understand, the Green Party, too. For the Conservative Party, one of the red herrings, the reason Conservatives say they do not support it is due to the fact that there is a reference to a carbon tax or a price on pollution. We then find out that Ukraine actually has had a price on pollution since 2011.

I am wondering if he could provide his thoughts in regard to the degree to which the Conservative Party is prepared to go in order to have the bumper sticker he is talking about.

Mr. Charlie Angus :

Madam Speaker, I would interpret it slightly differently. What we have seen online is the far right is a Putin troll machine. We see that Tucker Carlson, a white supremacist who is a Putin propaganda puppet, was vet